2020 Presidential Election

[Vanimal46]

Unlike Bernie, Warren at least proposes how she would pay for things. It's unclear what kind of tax Bernie is behind. Warren just as whole 'nother level of policy detail than Bernie has. But generally I agree with you.

There's validity behind Warren's policy ideas, even if I don't agree that the solution she proposes to pay for it will be enough. It's better than saying something with no reasonable way to pay for it.

[Vanimal46]

I think on this subject I am most comfortable with Klobuchar's stance. Where 2 year or vocational schools are "free" and 4 year institutions are something you have to pay for.

 

The value of a 4 year degree is so weird anyway. Without looking at numbers, I'd venture to guess 30-40% of people don't use their bachelor's degree in any meaningful way at their job. Yet companies still require that slip of paper just to get your foot in the door. It's silly.

[ashbury]

And those questions lead me to my second issue....how is that distinguishably different than high school?  If everyone goes.....and it's free.....and colleges get paid per pupil.....isn't that just high school but you aren't limited by geography?  And won't that dilute any value of going to college?

Pretty much like public 8th grade dilutes the value of going to high school.

 

I'm genuinely not sure what value you see in college that would be lost.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I think on this subject I am most comfortable with Klobuchar's stance. Where 2 year or vocational schools are "free" and 4 year institutions are something you have to pay for.

The value of a 4 year degree is so weird anyway. Without looking at numbers, I'd venture to guess 30-40% of people don't use their bachelor's degree in any meaningful way at their job. Yet companies still require that slip of paper just to get your foot in the door. It's silly.

I’m a big community college and vocational school proponent so I am concerned with the “free four year degree!” position. I will also assume until corrected that none of the Democratic candidates have had to truly wrestle with the personal economic decision whether to enroll in these types of schools themselves. (Not that that disqualifies them from understanding the issue etc etc)

[Vanimal46]

I’m a big community college and vocational school proponent so I am concerned with the “free four year degree!” position. I will also assume until corrected that none of the Democratic candidates have had to truly wrestle with the personal economic decision whether to enroll in these types of schools themselves. (Not that that disqualifies them from understanding the issue etc etc)

None of the politicians have for sure. But a large population of college students take their general classes at community colleges and transfer to the big 4 year school to finish their degree.

 

I think the "free" 2 year or vocational school would be great for people who want to learn a trade skill and get to work right away.

[Vanimal46]

Also, if 4 year universities become "free" then for the love of God, separate sports from the institution entirely. Isn't a portion of the increasing tuition rates going towards building an athletes village to help recruit the best players?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Pretty much like public 8th grade dilutes the value of going to high school.

 

I'm genuinely not sure what value you see in college that would be lost.

 

You don't see how the value of something will go down when literally everyone has one?

 

I would argue we're already down this road and it's part of why college expenses compound for people.  Now, to even get your resume in front of someone, you need more than a BA.  Now you need an MA.  Or a PhD.  

 

College, as originally designed (and as operated in all the countries where they do offer it for free), is pretty exclusive.  The reasoning for that is really, really sound.  Free college for all is the exact opposite of that sound reasoning.

[PseudoSABR]

CNN is having like 6 townhalls tonight for those interested.

[LaBombo]

 

I'm not sure resentment is viable policy consideration, 

 

It is when it places that policy in jeopardy of not being politically viable, as I stated at the beginning of the 4th paragraph. You can't enact policy if you can't get elected, and that could be a problem if loan forgiveness ends up sounding good only to the people with loans to be forgiven.

 

If, on the other hand, Democrats can convince post-college loan Americans that they're doing a good deed by voting wealthier people's tax dollars into the pockets of college graduates who are in the same strapped position now that the 30's mills were a few years ago, then it may neutralize the resentment factor and help make it a ballot-neutral or net positive issue.

 

[ashbury]

You don't see how the value of something will go down when literally everyone has one?

 

I would argue we're already down this road and it's part of why college expenses compound for people.  Now, to even get your resume in front of someone, you need more than a BA.  Now you need an MA.  Or a PhD.  

 

College, as originally designed (and as operated in all the countries where they do offer it for free), is pretty exclusive.  The reasoning for that is really, really sound.  Free college for all is the exact opposite of that sound reasoning.

I'm glad I went to college, and I can't deny a competitive aspect to my schooling (dating back at least to Kindergarten - I have been hard to be around at any age ). Somehow I didn't catch on that that was the value you were driving at, as a way for one individual to leapfrog other individuals in our various social castes.

 

But I don't see college as being valuable for its exclusivity. It's valuable if it teaches the most, to the most people. Now, I do agree with the mild backlash that trade schools should be given more emphasis than they get now. And I am not in favor of kids lingering in school just to delay their eventual emergence into the workforce. But the world today has too much going on to get all the important stuff across by age 18. If you've got anything on the ball, we're all better off if you keep at your schooling.

 

I got so angry when Senator Santorum during a campaign speech railed against Obama for some kind of "college for all" proposal back in the day. "What... a... SNOB!" he said snidely. That POV intentionally misses the point in order to stoke resentment.

[biggentleben]

A society will always benefit from encouragement of critical thinking and increased general knowledge base. Increased actual knowledge (not that garnered from Facebook) is vital to arguing falsehoods presented by those to sway the uneducated masses. Critical thinking skills are vital to challenge what is presented to ensure our leaders are presenting facts and not half-truths.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 And I am not in favor of kids lingering in school just to delay their eventual emergence into the workforce. 

Don't you judge me!!

[TheLeviathan]

 

But I don't see college as being valuable for its exclusivity. It's valuable if it teaches the most, to the most people. Now, I do agree with the mild backlash that trade schools should be given more emphasis than they get now. And I am not in favor of kids lingering in school just to delay their eventual emergence into the workforce. But the world today has too much going on to get all the important stuff across by age 18. If you've got anything on the ball, we're all better off if you keep at your schooling.

 

Not strictly, but it is a component of the value.  How much did having a GED advantage you in getting a job?  Next to none right?  It was only important insofar as it provided a stepping stone for the thing that did matter.  It showed that you demonstrated the necessary skills we feel all adults should have, so only its absence is of any serious consequence.

 

This paragraph tends to speak to my point.  If the argument for free college for all is that we can't teach everything by 18, we really are just extending high school and calling it college. At what point do we start to separate people based on the education required for their future career?  When does someone who needs a year or two of trade school separate from a doctor?

 

It would seem that then we need another system of education after whatever period of time the "stuff" you referred to is adequately taught.  And we're right back where we started.

 

Perhaps you are too far removed from the emerging workforce, but in many career paths there is an escalation of degree requirements that have nothing to do with the actual skills or knowledge the degrees represent, but merely as a way to separate from the pack.  Why?  Because there are already far too many college degrees competing for the same jobs.  (Jobs previously that wouldn't have even considered requiring a college degree too.  The trickle down of this is a double whammy)  And that is to say nothing about what that does to the wage value of a degree.

[PseudoSABR]

I'm watching Buttigieg townhall, and he basically endorsed Warren's plan, save that he is not comfortable with giving family's making 250K any kind of a break on student loans.  I was a bit surprised, given his former comments that it would be unfair to forgive such debt.

 

He also made the point, and I read this earlier today, that a big part of the tuition increase is that states have basically stopped subsidizing higher education; and who can blame them with the endless cash cow that is the federal loan system.  Obviously I don't have the data in front of me, but this sounds right, for many years states funded universities as a investment in their citizens.  That changed because baby boomers wanted cheaper taxes and could outsource that to making young people more responsible for more debt. 

 

[Musk21]

 

I'm watching Buttigieg townhall, and he basically endorsed Warren's plan, save that he is not comfortable with giving family's making 250K any kind of a break on student loans.  I was a bit surprised, given his former comments that it would be unfair to forgive such debt.

 

He also made the point, and I read this earlier today, that a big part of the tuition increase is that states have basically stopped subsidizing higher education; and who can blame them with the endless cash cow that is the federal loan system.  Obviously I don't have the data in front of me, but this sounds right, for many years states funded universities as a investment in their citizens.  That changed because baby boomers wanted cheaper taxes and could outsource that to making young people more responsible for more debt. 

 

I didn't watch the townhall last night, but one of the ideas that I've heard Mayor Pete talk about in interviews is a post-secondary 'Year of Service.'  This isn't an original idea....But has some merit to it I think.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/17/pete-buttigieg-national-service-program-civil-service-military-community-2020-mandatory-americorps/3495306002/

 

[PseudoSABR]

[gunnarthor]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/23/young-people-actually-rocked-vote-new-census-data-find/?utm_term=.18340fbc40f8

[Vanimal46]

https://twitter.com/HoarseWisperer/status/1120729163319730177

Well, that state of the art practice facility to recruit football players has to be paid somehow!

[Mr. Brooks]

Well, that state of the art practice facility to recruit football players has to be paid somehow!

Aren't football and basketball programs at most Division I schools self sufficient?

I seem to recall Jerry Kill complaining about all the fundraising and boosting he had to do to raise money for the practice facilities. I don't think they are paid for with tuition money, though I could be wrong.

[Vanimal46]

Aren't football and basketball programs at most Division I schools self sufficient?

I seem to recall Jerry Kill complaining about all the fundraising and boosting he had to do to raise money for the practice facilities. I don't think they are paid for with tuition money, though I could be wrong.

I'm not sure to be honest. I just went for the joke that tuition money paid for state of the art sports facilities.

[biggentleben]

 

Well, that state of the art practice facility to recruit football players has to be paid somehow!

 

...or the brand new science building they had to build to just recruit more tuition dollars.

 

In the end, it typically goes to a University President or other similarly-designated position, making well into 7 figures while some of his/her professors tend bar or donate plasma to make ends meet.

[biggentleben]

 

Aren't football and basketball programs at most Division I schools self sufficient?
I seem to recall Jerry Kill complaining about all the fundraising and boosting he had to do to raise money for the practice facilities. I don't think they are paid for with tuition money, though I could be wrong.

 

Tuition dollars can support University general-use facilities. Some schools go about that by having their shiny new athletic workout facility open to all students for certain hours that make it near-impossible for the average student to utilize, but even then, the entire facility has to be open for public use in that case, and most athletic departments don't enjoy that.

 

In general, though, football and basketball revenues are utilized to fund the general costs of other sports (and if you consider the costs of scholarships, many programs don't break even at mid-level D1 schools that try to compete with the "big boys"). Athletic use of any tuition money is fairly minimal, outside of facilities or activities that are to be general use.

[LifeLongTwinsfan]

Oh geez, you guys sure don't like Trump very much!

[Mr. Brooks]

Oh geez, you guys sure don't like Trump very much!

You forgot to sign it -SouthsideBilly...I mean -LifeLongTwinsfan.

[LifeLongTwinsfan]

 

You forgot to sign it -SouthsideBilly...I mean -LifeLongTwinsfan.

I'm not sure I get the reference. Was just commenting that this site leans left! No issues with me on that, we all have our opinions, don't bully me though please.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'm not sure I get the reference. Was just commenting that this site leans left! No issues with me on that, we all have our opinions, don't bully me though please.

The reference is to a new poster who is a Trump supporter whose posts get deleted.

[Badsmerf]

I'm not sure I get the reference. Was just commenting that this site leans left! No issues with me on that, we all have our opinions, don't bully me though please.

We welcome different opinions. I don't think the majority not liking Trump makes the site lean left. Get into specific policy discussions and you'll see the opinions are varied. The disdain for Trump also has different reasons behind it.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not sure I get the reference. Was just commenting that this site leans left! No issues with me on that, we all have our opinions, don't bully me though please.

Just two days ago we were spammed by a new poster; I doubt any offense was meant.  Please feel free to contribute.  Not everyone who posts is necessarily anti-Trump, though, you're right many of us are.

[PseudoSABR]

Biden enters the race.  Yawn.

[stringer bell]

My view is that all of the over-70 candidates are too old. That would include Biden, Bernie and Warren (70 this year). If the Dems want to win and get something done, they need contrast from Grandpa Trump.