2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPretzel Logic: Clinton- I disagree with free college because the rich can already afford it.
CLINTON: And then on the affordability side, I do disagree with Senator Sanders, with his plan about, you know, free college, because I want to have debt-free tuition, but I don't believe that my family or Donald Trump's family or a lot of other families that can afford it should have the advantage of free college. I think they should be contributing on behalf of their children.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/23/se.01.html
Ahem..... 2 items
1- Since when did your kid go to a public school?
2- Don't want "free stuff"? Don't take it. Income verification. Problem solved.
azmom
(5,208 posts)It's infuriating.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)DROP SOME TRANSCRIPTS...
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)So take on that staggering student load debt and STFU.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Trumps kids would be free to opt to attend some Community College on the tax payers dime.
Not sure how her supporters rationalize that position with themselves. To me it is utterly repugnant and a clear reflection of precisely the third-way mentality that I despise.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)over such a program, just as the repugs want to
do the same with SS.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Rich kids would be just as entitled to free college as poor kids (who in many cases didn't go to k-12 schools funded well enough to qualify a kid for college).
Why do you want to tax middle class 401ks to send rich kids to college for free? Makes no sense to me.
Qutzupalotl
(14,316 posts)And risk brushing up against the riffraff?
dsc
(52,162 posts)U of M has one of the best law schools in the country, Berkeley is one of the best schools in the nation, UNC has the top medical school in the south. The notion that the rich would consider these schools beneath them is absurd.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Everyone has a right to an education.
Denying that to people who can't afford it b/c a rich kid might also benefit is silly. Do you think we shouldn't provide fire protection equally to all people regardless of income? What about drinking water?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But welfare for rich people is still welfare. And the worst kind, IMO. Especially since the taxes will also be on middle class 401ks.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Taxes for water, fire protection, et al also are paid by everyone. The wall st transaction tax will have negligible effect on the middle class and framing it as a tax on 401ks is a bs frame just like the "death tax"
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Not to mention the social stigma of being singled out as unworthy because your parents are rich.
dogman
(6,073 posts)It is free tuition in public colleges. Their are still a lot of costs involved and that will require individual solutions. I'm sure theirs and other wealthy students will still opt for private schools. It's simply increasing K-12 to K-14-16. Community colleges should be tuition free. She has pledged no taxes so she can't pay for anything people want. Her friends need the money more than those students, even thought those students would pay back in taxes if they are more qualified and earn more.
jillan
(39,451 posts)when the commoners start filling up the public schools.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)shawn703
(2,702 posts)We are talking about extending the right to an education to include additional years, regardless of income. Hillary just looks really bad on this.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)dsc
(52,162 posts)and the standards colleges have favor the wealthy and middle class at the expense of the poor.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)You're deliberately taking it out of context. People who need help, get help, it's that simple if you didn't catch it.
beaglelover
(3,486 posts)The rich should not be eligible for any gov't subsidies to pay for college. That's all she was saying.
WiffenPoof
(2,404 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,365 posts)Thanks for the thread, TalkingDog.