Do any Dems actually agree with Hillary's position against free college tuition?

[reformist2]

I mean, it would be one thing if she were arguing that it isn't possible, given the current makeup of the congress. But no, she's chosen to go against the idea of free college tuition on principle... she thinks it'd be wrong!

I know a lot of Repugs probably agree with that, but how many Dems do???

[TBF]

1. No. nt

[NorthCarolina]

2. About paying for Trump's kids to go to College? LOL, NO

Small price to pay though for the immense benefit to the future of our nation and it's people, even though I doubt the ultra rich will be sending their kids to State College and Community College on the taxpayers dime even if they were able to.

[Duckhunter935]

10. That last part is important

And Hillary tends to lie about that part. It is not all college that is free. I think Clinton's and Trump will still go to Yale and Harvard, and we will not pay for it.

[XemaSab]

48. The children of the wealthy who themselves grow up to be wealthy

will pay back their tuition costs in taxes and alumni donations.

To look at it from another angle, if the children of the 1% go to school for free, having 1% waste in the system doesn't seem like a big deal at all.

I'd rather 1 "undeserving" person go to college for free than 20 deserving people be excluded and 40 deserving people go into debt for the rest of their lives.

HRC is arguing that having 60 people excluded or screwed is better than having the 1 "undeserving" person benefit.

[NorthCarolina]

49. Yes, that's pretty much my feelings on it as well.

in fact, when her supporters here on DU were using that talking point verbatim I thought it was fairly petty then, and I still do.

[leftofcool]

3. I agree with her.

I don't propose that anyone's hard earned tax money go to pay for rich kids college education. There are only so many acceptances per college and I would rather see it means tested so kids whose parents don't have money can get their kids into college free. Rich kids parents can pay for their own. I am in favor of all free two year colleges and free tech schools.

[arcane1]

8. Are you against universal health care, too? How about public K-12 schools?

[marym625]

9. so, what's the line drawn for this class divide?

Should we implement this for k - 12? Maybe change the Constitution to list who is entitled to public education?

No Child Left Behind and charter schools are working so well, right?

[Duckhunter935]

11. It's only for community college and state schools

The rich do not tend to go there anyway.

[Cheese Sandwich]

14. So let's get rid of public parks and libraries? Why the hell should we be paying for rich people to

lounge around and read FREE BOOKS.

Same thing.

Rich people would pay through taxes. Public education paid for out the common treasury, and free at the point of service for anyone to use.

It would be a great step in the right direction for building a better world.

[bvar22]

34. Rich Kids...

...do NOT attend State Universities.

[Doctor_J]

35. Is this cross posted at freeperville?

It sounds exactly like Limpballs

[putitinD]

4. no, I like Bernie's position

[daleanime]

5. Amen....

[Duckhunter935]

13. Yep

[hill2016]

6. free college is great

but there are lots of questions that need to be answered.

As it is, there's no serious proposal on the table to discuss the costs and benefits

1. Who qualifies for free college? Even Germany doesn't allow everyone.

2. Is free college is merit based? What does that mean for minorities?

3. Is there any time limit to how long you can be in college?

4. Is there any limit to the types of degrees you can take?

5. Is there any enforcement of GPA etc?

6. Who pays for free college?

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. #6... Wall St

[tammywammy]

43. I agree with your questions. n/t

[trueblue2007]

7. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I AGREE WITH HER !!!!

[sellitman]

12. She is soooo GOP Light

I just hope I'm not forced to hold my nose and vote for her in the General election. #p2

[shraby]

15. Free is the only way I would have been able to go to college at

all. When I graduated from high school, the jobs available paid around 40 dollars a week, for a 40 hour week.
After rent, food, phone and other necessities, that didn't leave much for a college fund.
Hillary's idea? Ptuii
Her way would still have left me out in the cold.

[Cosmic Kitten]

16. Stoking class envy!

She's counting on class resentments
and people voting against their own interests

[azmom]

29. That is exactly what she is doing.

She is shameless in her pursuit of the presidency.

[BainsBane]

18. Yes, including O'Malley

Firstly, it isn't free. It's tax payer funded. The question is how one wants to devote public funds. She proposes "free" community college education and debt-free four year degrees from public institutions on the basis of need. She does not support an upward redistribution of wealth.

Bernie's point about low income kids knowing that they won't face financial barriers to education as they grow up was a good one. Yet Clinton's proposal takes care of that. What is doesn't do is tax the pension funds of teachers and unions (which are in fact some of the biggest traders on Wall Street) to pay for the tuition for the wealthy and the upper-middle class.

The other important point that did not come up last night is that Bernie has no K-12 plan. None. He proposes nothing to address the rampant and structural inequality among school systems that creates generations of poverty. Without addressing that, those kids won't be in a position to take advantage of "free" college tuition.

I would like to know more about how Bernie's plan works. Does the federal government pay universities for tuition alone, or do they subsidize the entire public university budget? What about the research and public engagement components of universities? The U of Minnesota has an annual budget of $1.5 Billion, only some 20 percent of which is funded by the state. How will it be able to continue as a leading research university if it is subject to federal budgetary control, which would follow regardless of how the plan funds higher ed. If the feds only pay tuition to the U, they will enforce controls over how much that tuition can cost. We are already in a situation where state legislators demand a great level of control, even about hiring and personnel, despite the fact they only pay 20 percent of the budget. Will we now have the Tea Party House deciding what the university can do, who it can hire and fire, and what kind of programming an instruction it can engage in?

[BlueMTexpat]

23. Good reply! eom

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. Devil's advocate is my default setting.

1) The point of US education is to create more profitable workers. Perhaps business should pick up the tab.
2) Since we "can't" shift those costs onto business, the candidates would shift them onto workers - including the kids working on the farm or the construction site or at McDonalds for whom college was impractical. It's counterproductive to economic equality.
3) College is already exploitative. I don't see how it becomes less exploitative when it's free to the consumer. College isn't like health care - no one dies because for lack of those music credits.
4) I'm in favor of improving primary education, in particular doing something about the dropout rate (or at least measuring it accurately - we can do better than this) and support Pell Grants.

[Hydra]

20. It was a stupid answer

"We can't have nice things because rich people already have nice things"

Happy to be your 5th rec- I'm advocating for a minimum income plan, and yes the Rich should get it too. The main reason is that income based benefits are often seen as ripe for chopping block because "those people" get them. Everyone should have the opportunity for education and financial security, and if the private sector can't hack it, then we should have it through the gov't.

[Hoyt]

21. Not sure what the difference between "free" and her "debt-free" tuition really is.

[Hekate]

51. See my post #26 for how it worked quite well at one time. nt

[earthside]

22. Her position is so blah, so status quo.

I'm not sure that universal taxpayer-funded access to college is a great idea ...

However, Sen. Sander's proposal opens the discussion, it moves the ball down the field, we have something to debate and talk about.

Clinton is just so establishment -- she does very little for the progressive argument.

Mrs. Clinton could be a moderate Repuglican, or in the day, a Rockefeller Repuglican.

[merrily]

24. I'm all for free education and I could care less if Baron Trump participates in it.

(AFAIK, Baron is the only one of Trump's children still of school age anyway.)

For starters, the rich already have access to free K through 12 for their children, if they want it.

Universal free education has always been a point of pride in this nation , not something we stingyed on. And most of them go to private schools anyway. Can anyone tell me why 13 years of free education for Baron Trump, if his father would "lower himself" to that, is perfectly fine and doesn't ever get mentioned, but 2-4 years of higher education is not? A college degree today is as necessary as a high school diploma was 100 years ago. And much more than in 1635, when the first public school opened in Boston (made compulsory in 1642).

Sanders will be taxing the rich more. So, the money will not be coming from "the rest of us" but from all of us, just as everything paid for with taxes comes from all of us. The real problem is that too many of the rich and too many corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes, not that Baron Trump may opt for free public college.

Finally, Baron Trump is most likely going to an Ivy League, as did Hillary and Bill (Stanford for Chelsea), not to SUNY. However, if he opts for SUNY, so what? All of America should go without, so he doesn't get something? This is one of Hillary's most nonsensical sound bites.

Trump's kids already have everything they need. It's the rest of America that needs this.

158 families are donating half of the 5 billion being spent on this election. Assuming each one of those families have school age kids, we're talking a few hundred kids. Hillary wants us to think it makes sense to deprive hundreds of millions of kids of free public education, so those few hundred, who probably won't choose it anyway, don't get it? And she's trying to make out she's doing this to deprive the rich? In which universe does that make sense?

[Hepburn]

28. +1

My exact sentiment: "All of America should go without, so he doesn't get something?"

Excellent post.

[Hepburn]

25. Things open to the public...

...are open to the public. I see no reason to not allow universal access to public accommodations.

I don't get why some have a problem with this.

[Hekate]

26. The reference was to California in the 1960s, when it was eminently affordable, but not "free."

I attended then, starting at a community college, which was the least expensive option. I lived with my parents for those 2 years and bought my textbooks used. Fees and tuition were exceptionally low. The largest expenses were for food and housing, and I had that covered.

Costs rose as students went to state colleges, and to state universities, but by today's standards they were still affordable to all but the poorest. I paid for my university education by working 20 hours a week at a minimum wage job while going to classes; my mother chipped in $20 a month.

The key to this was that at some point early on the people and their legislators had made a decision that higher education was a public good, and so state education was heavily subsidized. Heavily subsidized. Tuition alone cannot cover those costs. Take away the underpinnings of tax support, and you have what we have today.

Then the concept of what the public good was changed drastically. There's so much more attitude that I think of as Resentful Libertarian, exemplified by the guy who told me when my kids were in grade school: Lady, you chose to have those kids; why should my tax money go for paying for their school?

It sickens me. All I wanted for my kids ( who are now 40 and 37) was the same opportunity I had: a higher education that would not leave them in debt for life. Not "free," whatever you think that is, but something they valued for its own sake and worked to achieve.

So I completely understand what Hillary said, because I was there. Don't try to spin it into something it is not.

[Weidman]

27. Not I.

I don't agree with it, and her plan only saves another 2k of the lifetime of the existing loans.

Not good enough.

Bernie's plan is very reasonable and affordable, paid for by Wall Street transaction tax.

[cantbeserious]

30. This Voter Agrees With HRC On Nothing - Too Include The Stance On College Tuition

eom

[azmom]

32. If they do, they need to go back to college.

For their sake, I hope Bernie wins so they don't have to pay for it.

[askew]

33. I think O'Malley's plan is better because it addresses the massive costs of

room & board and books as well. For many colleges, tuition is cheaper than R&B.

And O'Malley is right that making tuition free is just going to encourage universities to raise it with no end in sight. O'Malley has a plan to pay for college tuition and R&B and cap college tuitions so they don't keep going up.

But, I prefer Sanders' plan over Hillary's. Making tuition help means-based just means it will never happen.

[bvar22]

36. As a Mainstream-Center FDR Democrat, or course I believe in Universal Education...

...for anyone who wants it, provided they follow the rules of the institution.
AFIC, that is one of our RIGHTS.

In the 60s and 70s, tuition at the State Universities was nearly free.
ANYONE could attend a 4 year program (or Graduate School) and graduate DEBT FREE
if willing to work a part time job.
This was the NORM...not the exception.

WE should be able to at least do THAT again.

FDR State of the Union Address, 1944

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

My vote and support WILL go to whoever BEST embodies these values.
I am too old and tired to again support the Least of the Worst.
Let the chips fall where they may.

[Gothmog]

37. Yes-going for free tuition for everyone is a pie in the sky dream that is not achievable

There is a reason why Sanders has passed so few bills in congress

[MichMan]

38. Why would anyone go to CC?

If tuition is free, why would someone attend a Community college instead of a well known State university with all the amenities. I would think Univ of Mich would always be favored over Washtenaw CC if both were free.

[TeddyR]

40. Exactly

And when every person who graduates from HS in Michigan wants to attend the University of Michigan free what do we do? Georgia had this type of problem a few years ago -- under the Hope scholarship every Georgia HS student who graduated with a certain GPA received a scholarship to a state school, but there were too many students qualifying and too few spots, so they had to keep increasing the standards and still had too few spots.

[TeddyR]

39. Nothing is free

So someone has to pay for it. Many state colleges have very reasonable tuitions already. For example, a student from North Carolina or Virginia can attend UNC or UVA for very reasonable rates. Yes, you might need government grants, or perhaps even loans, but you can still attend for a reasonable rate. The idea of "free" college seems problematic logistically -- are we going to offer free education to EVERY high school grad in each state? Depending on the state, there are tens of thousands of graduates each year. This issue is much more complicated than people make it out to be. University of Alabama (state school) is different from University of North Dakota (state school) is different from University of North Carolina (state school) is different from Duke (private) is different from Princeton (private) is different from Air Force (government/public). What about a MBA, or law school or medical school? Are those going to be free too (and if not why not)?

[mythology]

41. Considering how poorly thought out Sanders plan is

I don't think that there is a good way to make public universities free and still maintain high quality public universities in our current system.

[Hepburn]

44. So when there was no tuition at UCLA it did not maintain high quality?

I beg to differ on that one.

[NonMetro]

42. When she said it, I thought to myself Wow! This lady really knows how to spin!

Donald Trump's kids would be going to state colleges? LOL!

I give her credit, though: she can BS with the best of them!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Cui bono? Who benifits the most from Free Education? The rich or the poor?

I think the answer is obvious. And, I (middle class) am willing to fork over more taxes even if a few rich kids benefit.

[Mona]

46. I worry about strings attached

With any increased government involvement. Universities are already getting outside pressure to become more effeicient, and it's negatively affecting how we educate our young adults. Several areas of studies are decreasing units in their majors, and students are discouraged to do things like double major, etc. The facotry model to education needs to be fought against.

We are starting to shoot ourselves in our collective foot.

[Hekate]

50. See my post #26. If society thinks it is a public good, they spend their taxes on it.

This applies to everything from sidewalks to sewers.....to educating the next generation.

[bahrbearian]

47. "I don't want to send Trumps kids to college for free, but I'll take all ..

his campaign donations."