Hillary Clinton Unveils Debt-Free College For All, Adopting Major Bernie Sanders Plank

a reply to: syrinx high priest

Honestly? For what the government already takes in taxes, we could already send every person to college and provide free healthcare to everyone.

But our government is corrupt.

I don't want to give a corrupt government any more money, power, control.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not everyone is cut out for blue collar factory work doing manufacturing either.

True but would you rather make coffee for a large Starbucks for 8.75$ or make axle seals for Dana @ 15.50$? Both would be unpleasant, but $ is what makes the world go around.

The best way to lower the cost of college is to get rid of student loans or significantly curtail them. College costs are inflated because anyone can go into debt to finance it. Once you remove the easy financing, college costs will collapse.

In a truly private market, kids with good grades who are studying the right majors and attending good schools should have no problem obtaining loans as the underwriting will take the actual ROI stats into account. On the other hand, below average students will have a harder time obtaining financing. As such, they will actually be better off as they will be forced to attend schools that are cheaper and can be paid for with less financing. They won't be burdened with debt that they cannot possibly pay off.

College only costs what it costs because student loans are plentiful.

originally posted by: Edumakated

College only costs what it costs because student loans are plentiful.

Good point. Like Obamacare, when the government subsidizes it, there is no free market cap to the costs.

And how does Hillary propose to pay for this...?

Hilley will flip on debt free college...

And the reason that Hillary won;t immediately flip after the November election is..?

originally posted by: DanDanDat
And what happens to family's making 130k a year? Their kids get the shaft?

They'll probably set up a graduated system around whatever dollar value, decreasing aid as income rises from that point.

If you're making 6 figures though, it's pretty much expected that you fund your childs education because no need based grants (which are most of them) will apply to your kid until they're 25.

originally posted by: seasonal
True but would you rather make coffee for a large Starbucks for 8.75$ or make axle seals for Dana @ 15.50$? Both would be unpleasant, but $ is what makes the world go around.

I don't believe in are sacrificing your future for the sake of your present
I also don't believe in going to work and doing a job you dislike just because you need to pay rent.

Some people want to work in a factory, and that's great for them. We should have that type of labor available and it should be viable. I want to do something different in life, if you gave me the choice between those two jobs I would pick Starbucks because it has less responsibility, and neither is what I want to do. I'm much more comfortable sitting in an office and white boarding logic problems all day long or building 3d models.

I don't agree with forcing people into a field they dislike. If you like the field you'll be more productive to it or at least you'll be more enthusiastic about the work if your only interest is a paycheck. Doing a job you hate every day for 10, 20, or 40 years only because that's what's necessary for survival sounds like hell to me. I'm lucky enough to have avoided that fate so far (seriously, I can't stress enough how unbelievably fortunate I've been in life... I'm pretty much the luckiest person alive), but many others aren't. A college education that doesn't bury them in debt could change their direction in life.

a reply to: Edumakated

That system worked back when private companies had actual career paths and would pay to invest in the education of their employees. Few companies these days offer that sort of education assistance, you can't study on your own, get an entry level position, and then work for a company while taking classes that they pay for.

That's one way the system used to work, and outside of a few fields like getting MBA's or being a teacher it no longer works that way.

In the good old days, we weren't giving loans out either, but it also wasn't a private market. The government simply directly subsidized the schools. That has been getting pulled back more and more over the years and was almost completely removed in 2008. There was never a pure market of low cost competitive college because of market forces. It's because the states and feds were subsidizing most of the budgets. Hillary's proposal basically goes back to that model which we had in one form or another from the 40's through the 90's.

It's going to happen. I don't know how many other people make the connection that university education is a matter of national security but it makes prefect sense to me. People need to be educated, and they need to be financially stable. That means that as an issue of national defense we need to fix the debt problem while not removing people from the college rosters. The only fix to that is throwing more money at the system.