Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

If I asked her nicely do you think she'd trade me her "dirt poor and dead broke" for my "dirt poor and dead broke"?

actually, they technically had negative net worth at that time because of bill's huge legal bills. however, somehow a bank saw fit to give them a mortgage for over $2million to buy a house.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

actually, they technically had negative net worth at that time because of bill's huge legal bills. however, somehow a bank saw fit to give them a mortgage for over $2million to buy a house.

And I'm sure she'll remember that kindness if she becomes president. When she's dirt poor and dead broke she gets a $2million house. I get a 30 year-old mobile home in a neighborhood that I don't walk without weapons.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

And I'm sure she'll remember that kindness if she becomes president. When she's dirt poor and dead broke she gets a $2million house. I get a 30 year-old mobile home in a neighborhood that I don't walk without weapons.

She's even out-of-step for the average middle class person.

Her college plan costs $35bn. Sanders' costs $70bn. His makes public higher education a public good for kids with the grades and test scores to get in. Hers gives out welfare for kids with poor parents. And that's the crux of the difference. She talks about college affordability like a welfare problem. He talks about higher education (including trade schools) like a public good.

And the "meanness" provisions are what get to me most. Like the mandate in Obamacare--more "poor bastard" taxes.

In this case, in order to get your food stamps...err...I mean...tuition stamps, you have to work 10 hours per week serving your fellow students who were born to wealthier parents. "Sorry you couldn't spend that 10 hours per week studying for the MCATs to get into that super-competitive Med School, Suzy, but you've got more important things to do, like serving chicken nuggets to your friends with wealthier parents who get to use that time studying in the cafeteria..."

Not quite meritocratic. Plus, there are real people who work those kinds of jobs now who will be displaced by this abundance of free labor that universities will be required to do something with under her plan...they just get thrown under the bus. And I can't see any rational reason for forcing the kids to work for the university for 10 hours per week, whether the university wants or needs their labor or not, except to punish them for the sake of punishing them.

Then there's the whole problem with "expected family contribution." If daddy earns $60,000 per year, but he blows it all at the bar and the horse track, you're shit out of luck as his kid. Not only is dad a dysfunctional, gambling, drunk, but he earns enough that you don't qualify for tuition stamps. That's right, nobody actually cares in this plan if kids ever do see a dime of daddy's money. It's just "expected." If daddy doesn't give it to you, you're SoL.

Then, of course, we'll need a new set of mid-level bureaucrats to calculate all this stuff and to manage the assignment and disbursement of tuition stamps to eligible children. And we'll need a new set of mid-level bureaucrats to manage all the new 10 hour per week labor assignments and keep the kids busy doing pointless work just to punish them for their parents not earning enough. Then we'll need even more mid-level bureaucrats to develop internal systems of billing and warnings and punishments and accounting and all sorts of other procedures that will go with this plan. So the Rube Goldberg machine of bureaucracy wins here, for sure. I'm sure tuition will go up as a result...

I could go on and on about how much of a complicated, kludgy mess this plan is, but I don't have to. You get the picture. It sounds just like every other plan Democrats have come out with generally in the past thirty years or so.

Meanwhile, for just twice as much money, you cover every kid qualified enough to get accepted to public schools. And who cares if some are wealthy? Very wealthy people don't generally send their kids to public schools anyways. The Ivy pedigree is worth too much.

It only costs 1% of the budget. That can be shaved from other places. It was during the sequester. This college plan (with trade schools and worker training) really is a good idea. You actually advance the best and brightest instead of the wealthiest and best connected. You let the Chamber of Commerce know that that skills-gap they're all so worried about will be closing up this way. And you give kids a little buying power in the market again instead of saddling them with debt.

I mean, it's too late for me. But it just makes a whole lot of sense to do it the simple way and treat post-secondary education like a public good worthy of government investment, particularly due to the positive externalities that come with a better-educated citizenship with more job skills. It makes a lot less sense to me to create a means-tested welfare program for public colleges...

Clinton wants to make it out like her plan is the more moderate or conservative of the two. But really I don't think it is. It might be a bit cheaper (for now). But means tested welfare plus new bureaucracy in some ways I think is a greater problem for at least some conservatives and Republicans than spending a bit more for universal access to public goods without the attached bureaucracy and welfare provisions.

Put simply, I'm not sure that just because her plans come with a lower price tag, they will be more acceptable to Conservatives than Sanders' plans. Conservatives might not like either. But there is something to be said for programs that are simple and universal, which his are, unlike complicated and population-targeted, which hers are.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

once upon a time, high school was not a free, public good.

wikipedia: In 1821, Boston started the first public high school in the United States. By the close of the 19th century, public secondary schools began to outnumber private ones.

apparently a family can be a wealthy as croesus and still send their kids to public high schools if they wish. no one seems bothered by this. why not?

elementary schools started being established and tax-supported in the 18th century.

so maybe in the 21st century we could take it up a notch and say that public higher education will be freely available. if i'm not mistaken politicians and economists are always saying that the future growth of the u.s. economy depends on a workforce as highly trained as possible. so maybe we should try to enhance the possibility of achieving that. just sayin'.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

And the "meanness" provisions are what get to me most. Like the mandate in Obamacare--more "poor bastard" taxes

It seems fairly clear that Hillary doesn't do much that's different from your run-of-the-mill Republican. Keystone XL, Patriot Act, war in Iraq, Wall Street bailouts, money from Super PACS, she's on-board until there's more downside than upside. She's a Clinton, Obama, Reagan Democrat.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

once upon a time, high school was not a free, public good.

wikipedia: In 1821, Boston started the first public high school in the United States. By the close of the 19th century, public secondary schools began to outnumber private ones.

apparently a family can be a wealthy as croesus and still send their kids to public high schools if they wish. no one seems bothered by this. why not?

elementary schools started being established and tax-supported in the 18th century.

so maybe in the 21st century we could take it up a notch and say that public higher education will be freely available. if i'm not mistaken politicians and economists are always saying that the future growth of the u.s. economy depends on a workforce as highly trained as possible. so maybe we should try to enhance the possibility of achieving that. just sayin'.

I agree to a certain extent extent.

But university for the masses seems to consist of two purposes:

1)day care for young adults

2)government guaranteed profit for special interests from student loan recipient indentured servitude.

I wonder if government subsidised tertiary education that more quickly responds to new business formation/entrepreneurial employment needs would be of value.

I've heard Germany does a decent job of this.

But I fear the special interest corruption would just smother or inappropriately shape Way most of the potential benefit.

Personally, I think everything ties back to having to clean house and fix the foundation first before trying to remodel the classroom(and hospital, etc.) sitting above it.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

I agree to a certain extent extent.

But university for the masses seems to consist of two purposes:

1)day care for young adults

2)government guaranteed profit for special interests from student loan recipient indentured servitude.

making it a free public good takes the profit out of it. little or no student loans- maybe just living expenses, no tuition. i agree that "college for all" is a misguided goal. i'd like to see better apprenticeship programs and vocational training, such as exist in germany. this would also get rid of the scam school programs that are milking the student loan programs.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Trump to win?

making it a free public good takes the profit out of it. little or no student loans- maybe just living expenses, no tuition. i agree that "college for all" is a misguided goal. i'd like to see better apprenticeship programs and vocational training, such as exist in germany. this would also get rid of the scam school programs that are milking the student loan programs.

But wouldn't there be an issue with all those artificial white collar administration jobs propped up only by government guaranteed student loan money?

Wouldn't most of those have to disappear?

Much like the artificial "manufacturing jobs" residential home construction jobs that disappeared with the housing bubble.

The mortgage market in the US was/is impossible without government intervention(virtual nationalisation by govt guarantee), isn't the same true of the higher education market in the US?

So polluted as to be beyond repair unless you directly destroy hundreds of thousands to low millions of well paying white collar jobs.

So is it not politically untenable to do so?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

artificial white collar administration jobs

Very hard to find those at the local level. Can you give four examples at the state level where you know the position and the person doing the artificial nothing?

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

Very hard to find those at the local level. Can you give four examples at the state level where you know the position and the person doing the artificial nothing?

Wouldn't these jobs disappear?

1. Various jobs in the financial aid department: student loan administrator, counselors, and their secretaries
2. For bogus colleges, the sales and marketing departments to entice suckers to enroll

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

2. For bogus colleges, the sales and marketing departments to entice suckers to enroll

My concern is that these bogus schools will explode like a virus. The government obviously can't / won't regulate these schools today. The debt incurred offers minimal market controls but if it's "free", we can be assured that Boss Tweed U will be NCAA certified and taxpayers will pay for the stadiums, courts and locker rooms required for their "students".

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

My concern is that these bogus schools will explode like a virus. The government obviously can't / won't regulate these schools today. The debt incurred offers minimal market controls but if it's "free", we can be assured that Boss Tweed U will be NCAA certified and taxpayers will pay for the stadiums, courts and locker rooms required for their "students".

That may not be too much of a problem if I understand Sanders' plan correctly. That is, college education will be free for academically-qualified students if they attend a public university. Non-profit, private colleges (such as the Ivies) and for-profit colleges (which most if not all of the scam colleges are) will have to be funded through savings, scholarships, loans, etc.

Any college plan put forth by an establishment candidate such as Hillary Clinton is, in all likelihood, going to be a massive boondoggle. There's not much we can do about that except hope that the voters do not elect an establishment candidate.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

My concern is that these bogus schools will explode like a virus. The government obviously can't / won't regulate these schools today. The debt incurred offers minimal market controls but if it's "free", we can be assured that Boss Tweed U will be NCAA certified and taxpayers will pay for the stadiums, courts and locker rooms required for their "students".

At least in the Sanders bill it only goes to public universities and there are hard limitations on that kind of behavior or they don't get the money (also hard limits on administrator:professor ratios, administrator pay, and limits to adjuncts to promote more full-time profs and fewer part-timers).

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

At least in the Sanders bill it only goes to public universities and there are hard limitations on that kind of behavior or they don't get the money (also hard limits on administrator:professor ratios, administrator pay, and limits to adjuncts to promote more full-time profs and fewer part-timers).

Thanks for the clarification, (MK as well).

[BK]

Re: Trump to win?

Lets find ways to send even more people to College for free and we can become FRANCE.

Please you should all talk to someone from France or other European countries. There are tons of well educated and under employed.

Has anyone consider that the money we are pouring into Public Schools and public universities is mis allocated capital? I believe in education, but I don't believe that a tenured professor, with a state pension, can help my chid in this new economy.

Berine Sanders hasn't a clue! I love Vermont and I appreciate how it doesn't look at all like much of the United States.

Population of Vermont 600,000 (600 with a K).

Giving away education, traditional state university will drive up the pension obligations for the young to pay and not prepare them for this new economy.