2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders' idea for free tuition at public colleges deserves an A
Bernie Sanders wants everyone to be offered a tuition-free college education and hes called crazy. America cant afford it, naysayers scoff. Hes just pandering to young voters.
But too many of us in California forget: This state did provide tuition-free college for generations.
That helped California achieve greatness by broadening the middle class and providing opportunities for upward mobility not available in other states.
It was an economic engine. In return for investing in higher education, California gained a widening pool of professionals, entrepreneurs and innovators who repaid the state many times over with tax payments, consumer buying and product creation. It set California apart.
So Sanders idea is not loony.
Another noteworthy thing about the Vermont senators intriguing race for the Democratic presidential nomination is that he doesnt seem to have been significantly tarnished by the mark of socialist. He would have been a few years ago.
The next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, Sanders told Georgetown University students in December, remember this: I dont believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production.
But I do believe the middle class and working class of this country who produce the wealth
deserve a decent standard of living.
Of course, its easier to tout socialism when youre running in Democratic primaries. Its not the same as a general election.
President Obama has been called a socialist by Republicans for eight years, says California pollster Ben Tulchin, who has conducted surveys for Sanders. That has diluted the brand. If Obama is a socialist, all Democrats are socialists.
Moreover, Tulchin adds, Its a negative implication that is lost on almost everyone under 50.
The USSR and all its socialist republics no longer exists. The Cold War ended while millennials were in elementary school. The Iron Curtain crumbled.
These days, Tulchin says, capitalism is likely to be as dirty a word as socialism among young voters. Blame Wall Street greed, corrupt mortgage lenders and the widening income gap.
Paul Mitchell, who crunches voter stats for Political Data Inc., says: When I grew up in the 80s, I didnt want nuclear war. That forged my political view.
Kids these days, their dominant political struggle is that their parents may lose their jobs, their house. Millennials go to sleep at night worried about not finding work or being laid off. Theyre ticked about economic insecurity.
That brings us back to free college. Its no wonder the 74-year-old Sanders brand of socialism appeals strongly to young voters.
More here: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-bernie-sanders-college-20160509-story.html
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)glowing
(12,233 posts)I thought that was the "real" culprit.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it was the voters
http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf
There are now reforms afoot about that. Oh and Reagan was a fan.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)providing college educations to Calif children directly cause their debt. About next you will saying "they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps." You know this is a message board for "politically liberals" right?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)Huh? What country are you living in???
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)Going to school makes one dependent...?!?!?
If that is the case I guess grades K-12 are really really bad....
/facepalm
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)and I have no children in them,pay for 4 more years wont bother me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
deathrind
(1,786 posts)I pay for them also and do not have nor ever will have children and I have no problem with that.
To paraphrase:
I do not mind taxes. It buys a civilized society with roads, water/electric/sewage infrastructure, parks, emergency aid, education...etc, etc, etc...
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)And don't think you represent Democratic thinking or even that Bernie does because it is not so.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)cutting programs for the 99% while keeping a high defense budget, for example.
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #29)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)will fix that. Too bad the Republicans want instead to depress wages and thus tax revenue.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)well after Reagan ended these free colleges. By the way, people who actually understand budgets and taxes said that passage of Prop 13 would do that.
I suspect you would have voted for Prop 13... call it a suspicion of mine.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But Bernie's only half-way decent idea wasn't particularly revolutionary was it?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Goldman-Sachs and Clinton.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)countries youth. Even though their businesses need educated workers. Conservatives like Clinton want the working class to pay via taxes. Conservatives don't like taxing the wealthy at all. Most really really want to be wealthy.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)But Hillary is he only candidate who ha pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class. Your assertion is pure bunk.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)an integrity issue. Do you think her transcripts tell the bankers they need to pay more taxes? She is close to the bankers and not the working class.
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)... not so much, just doesn't have the character to be president
uponit7771
(90,359 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)What is "absurd" about it?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and they don't like that.
kstewart33
(6,551 posts)It will never pass Congress. State legislatures must pay for one third of the total cost. Republicans control most of the state legislatures.
DOA in Congress and the states.
basselope
(2,565 posts)This just makes up THE DIFFERENCE.
TAA DAAA!!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What states are spending right now on higher education is roughly what Sanders's plan asks them to increase spending by to get rid of tuition.
They spend the same and the FTT makes up the difference, leaving them with 1/3 of the total bill (which is roughly what they already pay today).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He's asking states to kick in 1/3rd of the cost over and above their current funding levels.
The amount he is asking is equal to their current spending with the ftt making up the 2/3 currently covered by the people
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Or roughly doubling the states' higher ed budgets.
If you don't even take this plan seriously enough to read it why do you expect anyone else to?
Read the plan. the new spending comes from the FTT.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)if you think that this isn't new state spending he's asking for.
basselope
(2,565 posts)If you think that this is new state spending he's asking for.
Corporate666
(587 posts)Sorry to burst people's bubble... but there is no way to have your cake and eat it too.
Community colleges in the CA system (and nationwide) are nowhere even close to places like UCLA and UC Berkeley. It is simply not possible for the government to make some of the best universities in the country "free", and pay for it, and have the universities remain as good as they are now.
It's just not possible.
If UCLA was "free", enrollment would skyrocket. And they would have to become super-selective, and only the very top 1% (or likely less) would be accepted. And since that 1% would be the academic cream of the crop, they would be the ones least likely to need free university because they would be able to get grants and scholarships to most any university they wanted.
Bernie is advocating a juvenile fantasy in claiming college can be free, and be just as good as it is now, and everyone who wants to go can go, and it won't harm the private colleges, and it is all able to be paid for without causing an economic implosion. He's flat-out lying about it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and why it is so appealing to conservatives like Goldman-Sachs. And may community colleges have connected with state universities and give out full degrees.
Corporate666
(587 posts)There are only a few countries that offer free college education. Believing "Europe" has free college is like believing "America" bans abortion. It's just not true.
And as for the few countries that DO offer free college, their colleges are pathetically ranked compared to those in the USA. Not even in the same ballpark.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)France, Slovenia, Sweden, Mexico, and more. The conservatives like to make profits off our college students. It's all about greed.
Corporate666
(587 posts)that it worked (free college) for years and years in Europe, what you actually meant was that a few countries in Europe had low cost college?
Not exactly the same thing.
Take a look at the ranking of those free institutions and you will see they score badly. The reason is mostly because they are being run on a budget which denies them access to the latest facilities, materials and tools and of course denies them access to the top educational faculty.
Furthermore, even the countries where it's "free", it's not free.. you still have to pay for room and board, which comes out to around $10k/year.
Now, we have plenty of very low cost state universities in the USA. Florida State Jacksonville is $2,500 per year. New Mexico state is less than $1,800/year. Arkansas State is $2,500/year. These are very affordable schools, and I don't think there are many people who can't afford to go there (the vast majority could easily get loans, grants and scholarships to go).
The problem is that people don't want to go there. They want to go to top schools like Penn State, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Chapel Hill, Georgia tech and the like... and they don't want to have to pay for it.
Life just doesn't work that way. The reason the latter schools are so good is because they are expensive and they can afford top facilities and teaching talent.
People want their cake and to eat it too - that's the problem. And Bernie is right there telling them they CAN have their cake and they CAN eat it too. And people believe it because confirmation bias and because they would like it to be true.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)by their boot-straps. Yea, that's the ticket. This is intended to be a "politically liberal" message board not "politically conservative."
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)My in-state tuition in the '70s-'80s was essentially free-- undergraduate tuition was roughly $300 a semester, and just a Pell Grant would cover the entire fee. And grad school was free, with a little stipend included, for students with teaching assistantships. I took out a small NDSL loan as a financial cushion, but the 3% interest didn't start accruing until 9 months after I had left school for good. In the meantime, I was getting 5% bank interest with the loan, which helped to pay for some incidental expenses.
So I was a beneficiary then of what you're pooh-poohing today.
Corporate666
(587 posts)I never said college was never inexpensive for anyone, so I really have no idea why you are responding to that.
I said the free colleges that existed then (and now) are nowhere near the level of current state universities. That is a fact. If you don't believe me, look up where UCLA or UC-Berkeley are ranked on a national scale. Then look up any of the "free" California colleges.
They aren't even in the same ballpark - they are not even comparable.
It is simply not possible to make a school like UCLA "free" without
-Unprecedented costs
-Incredibly strict acceptance criteria
-Harming private colleges
For Sanders or anyone else to suggest otherwise is like saying you can eat as much pizza and ice cream as you want for every meal, and you will end up with the body of a greek god.
Sure, anyone can say it - but that doesn't make it true.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and became the powerhouses they did... becuase of that right?
Ignorance is at incredible depths these days.
Corporate666
(587 posts)Your post is a prime example.
UCLA and UC-B were not free for "literally decades". Even when it was "free" for residents, they charged much higher tuition to out-of-state students to cover it being "free" to residents. I put "free" in quotes, because there were tuition costs - except they just weren't called tuition. It really doesn't matter what you call it - the fact is one had to pay money to go there and if one did not pay, they did not go.
So your premise that they did it for 'literally decades' and this is what built them up to where they are is just completely wrong.
They were charging people to go there 100 years ago and have charged people every year since - on an increasing basis. As a matter of fact, back in the 50's they were charging non-residents about the same (on an adjusted historical monetary value basis) as they are charging today.
In the 70's, the state was paying about 1/3rd of the school's total costs, and 10 years ago it was about half of that. What elevated UC's status and ranking as a school was the amount of money they were bringing in which let them build superior facilities and hire top academic talent to teach.
The school was never free, and even if it was, the claim that being free was what let them become the powerhouse they are is just nonsense. Correlation is not causation, but there isn't even correlation.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)However, I am sick and tired of Bernie acting like he is the only Dem who wants this. Some of us look at a GOP House and see it won't happen. Promises and more promises from Bernie...and it won't happen. You can't use public opinion against the house because they are safe in their cozy districts and unless the gerrymander lawsuit winding its way to SCOTUS succeeds (another reason courts are so important)or we take back governorships and states houses by 2020. It will continue for another 10 years. Hillary beat Bernie by millions of votes.The supers will not overturn the will of the voters: She has more delegates. I look at the math and know he has no path. This is why I am so angry with him...he risks the general at a critical time in our history. I just can't believe someone who would risk a Trump president and knowingly criticise Hillary with words that Trump uses against is sincere in his beliefs. The president is one person and to expect him/her to be able to carry out the Democratic agenda without congress shows that you have no idea how the system works. So you people can post about pie in the sky...I will continue to look at what is actually doable. Bernie should concede and help with the heavy lifting needed to beat Trump...to do otherwise is unthinkable. It is at times like this that we can judge someone's character or lack thereof.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)Beyond Bernie vs. Hillary, the obsession of the moment - the college proposal most definitely deserves discussion!! It has a reasonable and significant mechanism for funding (trading tax), and it addresses a significant social issue of high debt among students, limited college access for a whole lot more students, and low investment in public colleges and universities. Why not encourage the party's leaders to put the election politics aside for long enough to give full consideration this proposed solution to a significant pubic issue? All we hear lately is that the primary is over - why didn't we have a robust discussion, as a party, about this proposal?
The objections to the college access proposal from a whole segment of the Dem party show perfectly why Dem party identification is shrinking, since the national party has no clue at this point how to to strengthen its natural appeal to liberals, young adults, and pre-voting age youth. Is this a party with core values focused on expanded opportunity? Not now - not as long as the voting Dem majority is paralyzed by fear of change and fear of Donald Trump in equal parts, so it can't even have a real debate about ideas like the college proposal. If HRC holds on - she's been the favorite from the beginning, OBVIOUSLY - she still faces high levels of dissent within her own party and she still loses primaries, even after five months of constant declarations that the race is over! Feel the excitement yet?
Less vision, more meh - that's how you win those young voters!!
My challenge to all Dems: debate the college access proposal on its merits. Can we all manage that?
Indpndntfrombirth
(9 posts)Dare to dream. Even if Hillary is elected and true (non-corporatist) progressivism must go underground for 4-8 years, the current only runs one way.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)for not thinking it through and making unanticipated consequences inevitable.
Trillions of tax dollars would be wasted on those whose families already can afford tuition anywhere, " fixing" what's not broken.
Families of those kids as well as families that could afford to pay part of the freight at private colleges would swarm Berkeley, Michigan, UVa, and other public university jewels, endangering the fiscal health of private colleges.
Most poor students would have an even harder time competing for public colleges than they do now. And even if they were admitted, they likely would not live within commuting distance, and could not afford room and board.
In comparison, HRC advocates an affordable $100 billion a year program called "America's College Promise" (Google it) that is targeted on those who cannot now afford college and avoids all the traps SBS's plan falls into.
In addition, HRC's plan, unlike SBS's sucker-bait for well-off white millenials, already has shown itself to be politically feasible. A version implemented by a Republican governor in very red TN has proved very popular with employers as well as with voters. Unlike SBS's plan, ACP is guaranteed to increase the supply of post-secondary degreed workers, as well as to decrease poverty.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)you realize that the funding mechanism proposed by the Sanders campaign is one successfully used in Europe at the current time, right? That be fast trades. There is another aspect to this proposal, prior to Raegan's assault on public education in CA, including basic primary and secondary education, as well as the passage of Prop 13, CA did this. They paid for kids, in state kids, to attend college.
It was, again, you are a progressive economist. an engine of economic growth. I am also positive you are familiar with the increasing linkage between great depressions and economic inequality, or maybe that is just a cute handle.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)before responding?
A basic principle of efficient subsidies is that they should increase the supply of what is being subsidized. HRC's "America' s College Promise" does just that, while SBS's boondoggle mainly would induce those already bound for private colleges to switch to public, wasting trillions with little effect on the output of workers with post-secondary degrees.
I presume the "fast transaction tax" you mentioned is a generalization of the "Tobin tax" a Nobelist economist proposed decades ago. Why would it be politically feasible now, after all these years of not being implemented? And if it were somehow enacted into law, why would it not be used for non-wasteful higher priority policies such as infrastructure banks or universal pre-K?
IMO SBS's "free college tuition" plan is a cynical bid for millenials' votes from a sleazy, clueless pol who is running against Democrats in Congress.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I also read both plans... and I know one is feasible economically since it is being done already. (Of course in Europe where they do not believe the No We Can't mantra of right wing trickle down US economics)
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)between the US and Europe is that Europe already has implemented higher-priority policies such as high quality universal preschool and primary school.
Another important difference is that in Germany or England, it is virtually only the elites who can pass the tough tests used to steer early teenagers to university rather than blue collar apprenticeships.
In Europe, "party schools" like UWV are hard to find, let alone subsidized the way they are here.
Apples and oranges.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And get rid of all public services, while increasing income innequality.
We will pay for this as a society. I am glad, I am dead serious, that I do not have kids, or would be looking for a way out of the asylum.
But on a very serious note, the US used to have "free universities" like in California. The level of ROI was significant. It is far from a coincidence that since we stopped doing that, and gutted education, CA is no longer leading in national statistics.
The fact that conservatives, yes, conservatives, keep making these arguments...
By the way, the self interest theory of having rich kids attend Cal State San Marcos because it is cheaper than oh USD, local example, is stupid. Why? For the same reason kids attend private schools instead of public school. Why? The name of the school in the diploma and the connections made are far more important than how cheap or expensive a school is at that level.
If you think kids will attend Berkley instead of Harvard...again proof and pudding. Kids still attended Harvard, even when Berkley was free. But hey, YMWV
And we will pay for this no we wan't attitude.
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)poverty while simultaneously increasing the proportion of US workers with postsecondary degrees the most, with least waste of scarce federal revenues?
That is the bottom-line policy question relevant on this thread, IMO.
My answer is HRC's. What's yours?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Last edited Tue May 10, 2016, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Hers is a band aid. Incidentally just like her climate plan
ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)Feel the Bern
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and well... she is a woman... yes, that is the level of dismissive thinking you just engaged in. Thanks for confirming though that yours is just a funny handle.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)ProgressiveEconomist
(5,818 posts)plan as outlined in his January SOTU speech.
See the Fact Sheet on "America's College Promise" at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveils-america-s-college-promise-proposal-tuitio
deathrind
(1,786 posts)We argue about everyone getting an education. This is not Democratic in any sense of the word.
BTW for those who think this idea of education for all is "pie in the sky tomfoolery". Remember over the last decade we as tax payers have dropped over a trillion dollars on ONE single plane.....that still cannot fly reliably for the nation defense.
I wont even mention non defense related corporate welfare or..............TARP.... oh wait, dang.
Uncle Joe
(58,405 posts)Thanks for the thread, Playinghardball.