Obama to propose two free years of community college (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good lord people education is not a right, community college is not a right, health care is not a right, leisure time and a whole host of things are not rights. Obama is talking about a constitution and a country that does not exist. How about we just pay our bills with the money we have, have a balanced budget and then make decisions from there?

Education of the population is very much a necessity of the government. A republic does not function without some level of education amongst the populace. The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic. It is in our short and long term best interest under almost every single definition you can come up with to make sure there is a large enough segment of our population that is educated to some level. The debate isn't that. It's how much of a percentage and what level. And with that, once defined, what if anything should the various levels of government do to ensure that happens.

The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic.

Not really, that the government must give free education as a matter of right is the underlying premise here. Is it good policy? Maybe, but sorry I and most people don't want to pay for someone else's education and the country is already underwater fiscally. It's DOA.

 

[TPW]

This is how the White House operates. "Let's get back in front of the news cycle by coming out in favor of something that will poll at 50 percent or better. We know that budget conscious Republicans won't approve, so we can make ourselves look good and them look mean and stingy."

Pathetic. But half of the country really eats this JV stuff up. Bread and circuses.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Good lord people education is not a right, community college is not a right, health care is not a right, leisure time and a whole host of things are not rights. Obama is talking about a constitution and a country that does not exist. How about we just pay our bills with the money we have, have a balanced budget and then make decisions from there?

Education of the population is very much a necessity of the government. A republic does not function without some level of education amongst the populace. The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic. It is in our short and long term best interest under almost every single definition you can come up with to make sure there is a large enough segment of our population that is educated to some level. The debate isn't that. It's how much of a percentage and what level. And with that, once defined, what if anything should the various levels of government do to ensure that happens.

The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic.

Not really, that the government must give free education as a matter of right is the underlying premise here. Is it good policy? Maybe, but sorry I and a most people don't want to pay for someone else's education and the country is already underwater fiscally. It's DOA.

So it's not so much the thing we are paying for but the fact that we would be paying for it at a time when we are in debt. That is a different argument. And there are very much easily usable facts and circumstances to counter that argument. An uneducated populace doesn't help grow an economy or even stabilze one. It does the opposite. You and most people want very much - whether you know it or not - an educated populace in this country. You want more engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, scientists. You need more people that can produce something. You want less people that are stuck in a lifestyle that cannot get better who turn to alternate avenues to obtain the currency necessary to survive in this country with a global economy. You want less people needing to work at McDonalds and more people striving to build companies.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good lord people education is not a right, community college is not a right, health care is not a right, leisure time and a whole host of things are not rights. Obama is talking about a constitution and a country that does not exist. How about we just pay our bills with the money we have, have a balanced budget and then make decisions from there?

Education of the population is very much a necessity of the government. A republic does not function without some level of education amongst the populace. The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic. It is in our short and long term best interest under almost every single definition you can come up with to make sure there is a large enough segment of our population that is educated to some level. The debate isn't that. It's how much of a percentage and what level. And with that, once defined, what if anything should the various levels of government do to ensure that happens.

The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic.

Not really, that the government must give free education as a matter of right is the underlying premise here. Is it good policy? Maybe, but sorry I and a most people don't want to pay for someone else's education and the country is already underwater fiscally. It's DOA.

So it's not so much the thing we are paying for but the fact that we would be paying for it at a time when we are in debt. That is a different argument. And there are very much easily usable facts and circumstances to counter that argument. An uneducated populace doesn't help grow an economy or even stabilze one. It does the opposite. You and most people want very much - whether you know it or not - an educated populace in this country. You want more engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, scientists. You need more people that can produce something. You want less people that are stuck in a lifestyle that cannot get better who turn to alternate avenues to obtain the currency necessary to survive in this country with a global economy. You want less people needing to work at McDonalds and more people striving to build companies.

First of all, I think Obama (if he does) believes in this because he thinks it is a right.

Secondly the points are great but for crying out loud let's get our children educated first. Elsewhere there is a thread about how our college students are by and large reading at a 7th grade level. Don't educate them how to read and write at a 7th grade level in community college, do it in the actual 7th grade.

The coming GOP platform is pretty outrageous in this regard, they will be attacking common core. Which is insane to me, if Obama wants to bolster education start there.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

How many people here that are against spending more on education, are also against the government spending money on food stamps/ other assistance for the poor?

That's the message the left will push. As soon as Congress questions how we will pay for this the left will say 'GOP against education!'

I wrote this when discussing the proposal with a friend yesterday: It's easy legislation to propose because you can label opposition anti-education, anti-youth, and anti-betterment. If it disproportionately affects minorities you can also hint at racism. Shrewd political move.

"Shrewd" or disingenuous?

I can't get in Obama's head to know whether he's proposing the legislation for disingenuous reasons (doubtful), but I can look at the situation on its face and see that it's a shrewd political move.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How many people here that are against spending more on education, are also against the government spending money on food stamps/ other assistance for the poor?

That's the message the left will push. As soon as Congress questions how we will pay for this the left will say 'GOP against education!'

I wrote this when discussing the proposal with a friend yesterday: It's easy legislation to propose because you can label opposition anti-education, anti-youth, and anti-betterment. If it disproportionately affects minorities you can also hint at racism. Shrewd political move.

"Shrewd" or disingenuous?

I can't get in Obama's head to know whether he's proposing the legislation for disingenuous reasons (doubtful), but I can look at the situation on its face and see that it's a shrewd political move.

Ok sorry that's worse, crafting expensive policy measures for purely the political trouble it will cause for the opposition is a very bad and opportunistic, shallow way to run a country.

 

[SIDA!]

If you plan on going to your state university, you might as well just do your first two years at CC in all classes with credits that will transfer and then finish up at the big school for the last two years. Way, way less fun, but you save yourself from huge loan debt.

The difference between CC and in-state tuition at most state schools isn't huge.

It's between five and ten times cheaper in CA. That seems pretty huge.

Woah, that is big- it's only like ~1.5 times higher in NY, for example. In any event, while it would help, it wouldn't make a huge dent in the student debt crisis.

It's like $50/unit, which is quite affordable. Good luck signing up for classes though. A lot if schools are heavily impacted.

One of the reasons why it is impacted is because we don't actually treat institutions of higher learning as a place for higher learning. They are simply extensions of the k-12 babysitting factories for thousands of dumbasses who screwed around in high school, got crappy grades and now want to delay entering the real world.

If Obama is going to do something like this...how about you at least reward the students who actually put the work in and only allow students who graduated high school with a 3.0 GPA or better to attend for free.

You really have a pessimistic view of the function of community college.

And I'll echo Gunz, investing in education is bad?

No. I have a pessimistic view about many of the dip####s that attend so that they can tell everyone they are going to college, even though many can barely string two sentences together to save their life. And I am supposed to pay for their babysitting. It is a joke.

I cannot speak authoritatively on other states, but there is absolutely zero reasons to make community colleges (which are already subsidized greatly) free. I haven't read the entire thread, but I am sure that people have already mentioned the idiocy of basically opening the floodgates to a nearly limitless supply of students when the facilities will not even be able to support them. So, now students who are trying to use the community college system for its true purposes are even less likely to get access to the resources they need to move into the career they want or on to a four year school.

Serious question. Have you ever attended a community college and if so, what/how many classes did you take?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Good lord people education is not a right, community college is not a right, health care is not a right, leisure time and a whole host of things are not rights. Obama is talking about a constitution and a country that does not exist. How about we just pay our bills with the money we have, have a balanced budget and then make decisions from there?

Education of the population is very much a necessity of the government. A republic does not function without some level of education amongst the populace. The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic. It is in our short and long term best interest under almost every single definition you can come up with to make sure there is a large enough segment of our population that is educated to some level. The debate isn't that. It's how much of a percentage and what level. And with that, once defined, what if anything should the various levels of government do to ensure that happens.

The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic.

Not really, that the government must give free education as a matter of right is the underlying premise here. Is it good policy? Maybe, but sorry I and a most people don't want to pay for someone else's education and the country is already underwater fiscally. It's DOA.

So it's not so much the thing we are paying for but the fact that we would be paying for it at a time when we are in debt. That is a different argument. And there are very much easily usable facts and circumstances to counter that argument. An uneducated populace doesn't help grow an economy or even stabilze one. It does the opposite. You and most people want very much - whether you know it or not - an educated populace in this country. You want more engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, scientists. You need more people that can produce something. You want less people that are stuck in a lifestyle that cannot get better who turn to alternate avenues to obtain the currency necessary to survive in this country with a global economy. You want less people needing to work at McDonalds and more people striving to build companies.

First of all, I think Obama (if he does) believes in this because he thinks it is a right.

Secondly the points are great but for crying out loud let's get our children educated first. Elsewhere there is a thread about how our college students are by and large reading at a 7th grade level. Don't educate them how to read and write at a 7th grade level in community college, do it in the actual 7th grade.

The coming GOP platform is pretty outrageous in this regard, they will be attacking common core. Which is insane to me, if Obama wants to bolster education start there.

Common core is an abomination. But that is a different subject.

I agree with your second point. I have a solution to that which Tgunz and his party would never ever ever allow to happen and that is to eliminate the monopoly of the government in education at the grade school and high school levels. It's an antiquated system in the 20th, let alone the 21est century. PS141 is no longer necessary to be the stand alone education center for the kids in our community. Private enterprises should be allowed and given the governmental support to destroy the system we have. There should be Nike high school, Google grade school and on and on. There is no good argument against it.

The government simply needs a basic cirriculum that must be adhered to - basic to above basic levels of reading, writing, mathematics, history, science and so on and from there allow these companies and private enterprises to gear schooling towards actual real needs in education. We force those of us who send our kids to private school to also pay for the public system at the same time. We need a massive paradigm shift there. I understand the need to pay property taxes. But I should get some kind of useful tax credit when I don't use the system and instead use a private school. Vouchers should be increased significantly. The ability for parents to choose the educational pathway for their children should be nurtured, not tempered to ensure the lowest common denomintor. We will still need public schools. But if there was actually competition against those schools, the system would get better I believe.

The fix to education in this country is spending more money on it. And also using that money better. College costs too much. Student loan debt hinders graduates. High school doesn't prepare anyone for anything. Trade schools don't get enough support from our nation. We are doing a great job at creating a ton of liberal arts majors who can't balance their check book and forgetting that we need electricians plumbers and tradesmen. We don't create anything here anymore because we don't train creators. We train business leaders and thinkers, but not the people those business leaders need to make their stuff or build the stuff the thinkers think up.

Education in this way - creating a true middle class again - is at this point in history one of the most important things we can do and our failure to do it is a clear and present danger to the stability of our nation.

 

[Bucky86]

This is how the White House operates. "Let's get back in front of the news cycle by coming out in favor of something that will poll at 50 percent or better. We know that budget conscious Republicans won't approve, so we can make ourselves look good and them look mean and stingy."

Pathetic. But half of the country really eats this JV stuff up. Bread and circuses.

Well, if 50 percent of the people are for boosting education then maybe the right should propose their own way to help with this?

 

[FUBAR]

This is how the White House operates. "Let's get back in front of the news cycle by coming out in favor of something that will poll at 50 percent or better. We know that budget conscious Republicans won't approve, so we can make ourselves look good and them look mean and stingy."

Pathetic. But half of the country really eats this JV stuff up. Bread and circuses.

You lost me at "budget conscious republicans".

Both sides spend too much, the only difference is on what.

 

[FUBAR]

Instead of making it free, find ways people can contribute to society and receive free tuition.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW the Common Core haters need to start looking at the data. It is not what they are making it out to be and is having success.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good lord people education is not a right, community college is not a right, health care is not a right, leisure time and a whole host of things are not rights. Obama is talking about a constitution and a country that does not exist. How about we just pay our bills with the money we have, have a balanced budget and then make decisions from there?

Education of the population is very much a necessity of the government. A republic does not function without some level of education amongst the populace. The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic. It is in our short and long term best interest under almost every single definition you can come up with to make sure there is a large enough segment of our population that is educated to some level. The debate isn't that. It's how much of a percentage and what level. And with that, once defined, what if anything should the various levels of government do to ensure that happens.

The argument that it is not a right is really missing the point of the topic.

Not really, that the government must give free education as a matter of right is the underlying premise here. Is it good policy? Maybe, but sorry I and a most people don't want to pay for someone else's education and the country is already underwater fiscally. It's DOA.

So it's not so much the thing we are paying for but the fact that we would be paying for it at a time when we are in debt. That is a different argument. And there are very much easily usable facts and circumstances to counter that argument. An uneducated populace doesn't help grow an economy or even stabilze one. It does the opposite. You and most people want very much - whether you know it or not - an educated populace in this country. You want more engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, scientists. You need more people that can produce something. You want less people that are stuck in a lifestyle that cannot get better who turn to alternate avenues to obtain the currency necessary to survive in this country with a global economy. You want less people needing to work at McDonalds and more people striving to build companies.

First of all, I think Obama (if he does) believes in this because he thinks it is a right.

Secondly the points are great but for crying out loud let's get our children educated first. Elsewhere there is a thread about how our college students are by and large reading at a 7th grade level. Don't educate them how to read and write at a 7th grade level in community college, do it in the actual 7th grade.

The coming GOP platform is pretty outrageous in this regard, they will be attacking common core. Which is insane to me, if Obama wants to bolster education start there.

Common core is an abomination. But that is a different subject.

I agree with your second point. I have a solution to that which Tgunz and his party would never ever ever allow to happen and that is to eliminate the monopoly of the government in education at the grade school and high school levels. It's an antiquated system in the 20th, let alone the 21est century. PS141 is no longer necessary to be the stand alone education center for the kids in our community. Private enterprises should be allowed and given the governmental support to destroy the system we have. There should be Nike high school, Google grade school and on and on. There is no good argument against it.

The government simply needs a basic cirriculum that must be adhered to - basic to above basic levels of reading, writing, mathematics, history, science and so on and from there allow these companies and private enterprises to gear schooling towards actual real needs in education. We force those of us who send our kids to private school to also pay for the public system at the same time. We need a massive paradigm shift there. I understand the need to pay property taxes. But I should get some kind of useful tax credit when I don't use the system and instead use a private school. Vouchers should be increased significantly. The ability for parents to choose the educational pathway for their children should be nurtured, not tempered to ensure the lowest common denomintor. We will still need public schools. But if there was actually competition against those schools, the system would get better I believe.

The fix to education in this country is spending more money on it. And also using that money better. College costs too much. Student loan debt hinders graduates. High school doesn't prepare anyone for anything. Trade schools don't get enough support from our nation. We are doing a great job at creating a ton of liberal arts majors who can't balance their check book and forgetting that we need electricians plumbers and tradesmen. We don't create anything here anymore because we don't train creators. We train business leaders and thinkers, but not the people those business leaders need to make their stuff or build the stuff the thinkers think up.

Education in this way - creating a true middle class again - is at this point in history one of the most important things we can do and our failure to do it is a clear and present danger to the stability of our nation.

Well to put a point on this, this is what charter schools do. A Dem guy like De Blasio has been anti-charter. A Demo guy like Duncan (I believe) is pro-charter. Politically it's not clear where these issues lie.

Charter schools are essentially corporations, it would be just one more step for corporations to open their own schools. I think Google has actually done something like this in San Fran... and it has caused a local reaction against (along with other similar initiatives they are doing, like providing for their own public transportation).

But people have absolutely got to get involved locally. The potential is there, but I think people would rather read a politician or candidate say "I got this" on a national level than militate locally for policy changes on a city, county or state level. It took a hurricane here for changes to happen, our city was destroyed, then we started to build from the ground up, now we have an improving education system including flourishing charters. But it took an absolute disaster to make it happen.

 

[FUBAR]

BTW the Common Core haters need to start looking at the data. It is not what they are making it out to be and is having success.

Seems to be bringing up the bottom but not helping the better students.

 

[bagger]

Seems to me the two main issues we have with the emerging work force are

1. Student debt is out of hand from attending 4 year universities.

2. Too many people are being pushed from trade schools into universities when it really should be the opposite. We need more people with trade skills and less with meaningless college degrees.

Not sure how this addresses either.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

BTW the Common Core haters need to start looking at the data. It is not what they are making it out to be and is having success.

I don't know if this is the place for the discussion, but I agree. I don't even know if it's about the success of it, it's just about the principle of having standards and goals.

 

[NCCommish]

Tuition at public colleges came to $62.6 billion in 2012, according to the latest government data. That’s less than what the government already spends to subsidize the cost of college through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds, which comes to about $69 billion. It spends another $107.4 billion on student loans.

That means that with the money it already spends to make college affordable, the government could instead subsidize public college tuition, thereby making it free for all students. This would not just mean anyone could attend a higher education institution without worrying about cost, but it could incentivize private ones to reduce their costs in order to compete with the free option.

It would also address the government’s current patchwork attempts to make college affordable, which isn’t working for many low- and middle-income families. Tax-based aid is mostly delivered to wealthy families, not the ones in need. Pell Grants, on the other hand, were cut in 2012, which meant students got less aid or kicked out altogether, after already covering the smallest percentage of college costs since the program was created.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW the Common Core haters need to start looking at the data. It is not what they are making it out to be and is having success.

Seems to be bringing up the bottom but not helping the better students.

Seems to me bringing up the bottom is a pretty good thing.

 

[bagger]

Tuition at public colleges came to $62.6 billion in 2012, according to the latest government data. Thats less than what the government already spends to subsidize the cost of college through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds, which comes to about $69 billion. It spends another $107.4 billion on student loans.

That means that with the money it already spends to make college affordable, the government could instead subsidize public college tuition, thereby making it free for all students. This would not just mean anyone could attend a higher education institution without worrying about cost, but it could incentivize private ones to reduce their costs in order to compete with the free option.

It would also address the governments current patchwork attempts to make college affordable, which isnt working for many low- and middle-income families. Tax-based aid is mostly delivered to wealthy families, not the ones in need. Pell Grants, on the other hand, were cut in 2012, which meant students got less aid or kicked out altogether, after already covering the smallest percentage of college costs since the program was created.

i would be more for drastically reducing 4 year public college tuition across the board (where there are more rigorous entrance requirements compared to CC) and also likely reducing private university tuition cost than this community college idea.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

How many people here that are against spending more on education, are also against the government spending money on food stamps/ other assistance for the poor?

That's the message the left will push. As soon as Congress questions how we will pay for this the left will say 'GOP against education!'

I wrote this when discussing the proposal with a friend yesterday: It's easy legislation to propose because you can label opposition anti-education, anti-youth, and anti-betterment. If it disproportionately affects minorities you can also hint at racism. Shrewd political move.

"Shrewd" or disingenuous?

I can't get in Obama's head to know whether he's proposing the legislation for disingenuous reasons (doubtful), but I can look at the situation on its face and see that it's a shrewd political move.

Ok sorry that's worse, crafting expensive policy measures for purely the political trouble it will cause for the opposition is a very bad and opportunistic, shallow way to run a country.

I don't think the proposed legislation is strictly to give the GOP political trouble. But if the GOP shoots down the proposal, the Democrats probably will try to paint the GOP in a negative light. That's the way the Washington game is played.

 

[NCCommish]

Tuition at public colleges came to $62.6 billion in 2012, according to the latest government data. Thats less than what the government already spends to subsidize the cost of college through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds, which comes to about $69 billion. It spends another $107.4 billion on student loans.

That means that with the money it already spends to make college affordable, the government could instead subsidize public college tuition, thereby making it free for all students. This would not just mean anyone could attend a higher education institution without worrying about cost, but it could incentivize private ones to reduce their costs in order to compete with the free option.

It would also address the governments current patchwork attempts to make college affordable, which isnt working for many low- and middle-income families. Tax-based aid is mostly delivered to wealthy families, not the ones in need. Pell Grants, on the other hand, were cut in 2012, which meant students got less aid or kicked out altogether, after already covering the smallest percentage of college costs since the program was created.

i would be more for drastically reducing 4 year public college tuition across the board (where there are more rigorous entrance requirements compared to CC) and also likely reducing private university tuition cost than this community college idea.

I think all continuing education be it CC/Voc or state 4 year should be free. Student loan debt in this country has now topped 1 trillion. That is hurting the economy.

 

[Road Warriors]

BTW the Common Core haters need to start looking at the data. It is not what they are making it out to be and is having success.

Seems to be bringing up the bottom but not helping the better students.

Seems to me bringing up the bottom is a pretty good thing.

If the cost is to cap the growth at the top, I'd disagree.

 

[Dickies]

Community college is not where student loan debt is being created. It is already affordable, so I do not really understand why we would make it free. As others have said we do not need more people with AAs, we need more vocational training. I firmly believe the entire education system needs an overhaul. It's not that we do not have good schools/teachers, but that we have a bulk of the student base disinterested in the curriculum. We dump all of our resources into getting the failing students up to a passing level instead of improving our top students into the leading innovators of the future. If I were in charge I would filter the students after middle school, with high school strictly being college prep, and take the rest and move them to vocational school. Give the college-bound kids the resources to be successful and give the rest the opportunity to gain employable skills

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In Louisiana (like everything else here) community and technical colleges are a very politically connected and powerful thing. Tons of graft and patronage, I actually have a relative who teaches history at Delgado CC in NO.

Here's the trick: colleges mean buildings, money for colleges means more buildings and that means more construction. More construction means loans and bonds, the bonding is done through a financial firm that contributes to politicians and rewards them in other ways. It's a serious way for those in charge of the CC board to funnel money into their own pockets, often that money is moved into land, LLC's, and silent partnerships (in LA controlled by something from the French called counter letters).

Boom-boom-boom. In LA at least: Financing of CC = $$$ for politicians and their friends.

No thanks, once again.

 

[NCCommish]

BTW the Common Core haters need to start looking at the data. It is not what they are making it out to be and is having success.

Seems to be bringing up the bottom but not helping the better students.

Seems to me bringing up the bottom is a pretty good thing.

If the cost is to cap the growth at the top, I'd disagree.

The kids at the top are not capped. They just don't seem as brilliant when the kids at the bottom start to catch up.

 

[NCCommish]

Community college is not where student loan debt is being created. It is already affordable, so I do not really understand why we would make it free. As others have said we do not need more people with AAs, we need more vocational training. I firmly believe the entire education system needs an overhaul. It's not that we do not have good schools/teachers, but that we have a bulk of the student base disinterested in the curriculum. We dump all of our resources into getting the failing students up to a passing level instead of improving our top students into the leading innovators of the future. If I were in charge I would filter the students after middle school, with high school strictly being college prep, and take the rest and move them to vocational school. Give the college-bound kids the resources to be successful and give the rest the opportunity to gain employable skills

In the German system every kid leaves high school with training in a trade as I understand it. The ones that go on to college don't use it much I guess but the ones who are not going on are ready to go into apprentice programs and polish that skill.

 

[jon_mx]

So we are going to subsidized the least effective form of education we have.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Community college is not where student loan debt is being created. It is already affordable, so I do not really understand why we would make it free. As others have said we do not need more people with AAs, we need more vocational training. I firmly believe the entire education system needs an overhaul. It's not that we do not have good schools/teachers, but that we have a bulk of the student base disinterested in the curriculum. We dump all of our resources into getting the failing students up to a passing level instead of improving our top students into the leading innovators of the future. If I were in charge I would filter the students after middle school, with high school strictly being college prep, and take the rest and move them to vocational school. Give the college-bound kids the resources to be successful and give the rest the opportunity to gain employable skills

Do high schools not already have college prep tracks? I thought it was pretty standard to have a track that leads to AP courses for college-bound students.

 

[Apple Jack]

A lot of the fundamental "you didn't build that" philosophy and the inability of many to understand it's truth at play here. I've got mine, you get yours misses the point so badly as to suggest egocentrism bordering on psychosis.

 

[bagger]

Tuition at public colleges came to $62.6 billion in 2012, according to the latest government data. Thats less than what the government already spends to subsidize the cost of college through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds, which comes to about $69 billion. It spends another $107.4 billion on student loans.

That means that with the money it already spends to make college affordable, the government could instead subsidize public college tuition, thereby making it free for all students. This would not just mean anyone could attend a higher education institution without worrying about cost, but it could incentivize private ones to reduce their costs in order to compete with the free option.

It would also address the governments current patchwork attempts to make college affordable, which isnt working for many low- and middle-income families. Tax-based aid is mostly delivered to wealthy families, not the ones in need. Pell Grants, on the other hand, were cut in 2012, which meant students got less aid or kicked out altogether, after already covering the smallest percentage of college costs since the program was created.

i would be more for drastically reducing 4 year public college tuition across the board (where there are more rigorous entrance requirements compared to CC) and also likely reducing private university tuition cost than this community college idea.

I think all continuing education be it CC/Voc or state 4 year should be free. Student loan debt in this country has now topped 1 trillion. That is hurting the economy.

i completely agree but can't imagine that community college is even close to a large factor of that.

 

[NutterButter]

How many people here that are against spending more on education, are also against the government spending money on food stamps/ other assistance for the poor?

That's the message the left will push. As soon as Congress questions how we will pay for this the left will say 'GOP against education!'

I wrote this when discussing the proposal with a friend yesterday: It's easy legislation to propose because you can label opposition anti-education, anti-youth, and anti-betterment. If it disproportionately affects minorities you can also hint at racism. Shrewd political move.

Especially going into the next election. You get the minorities and youth to show up to vote and they might be banking on an issue like this to do so, you greatly increase a democratic victory in the presidential as well as retaking the senate.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How many people here that are against spending more on education, are also against the government spending money on food stamps/ other assistance for the poor?

That's the message the left will push. As soon as Congress questions how we will pay for this the left will say 'GOP against education!'

I wrote this when discussing the proposal with a friend yesterday: It's easy legislation to propose because you can label opposition anti-education, anti-youth, and anti-betterment. If it disproportionately affects minorities you can also hint at racism. Shrewd political move.

Especially going into the next election. You get the minorities and youth to show up to vote and they might be banking on an issue like this to do so, you greatly increase a democratic victory in the presidential as well as retaking the senate.

So not only is this the right thing to do, it's also politically expedient.

 

[Joe T]

.

 

[NutterButter]

How many people here that are against spending more on education, are also against the government spending money on food stamps/ other assistance for the poor?

That's the message the left will push. As soon as Congress questions how we will pay for this the left will say 'GOP against education!'

I wrote this when discussing the proposal with a friend yesterday: It's easy legislation to propose because you can label opposition anti-education, anti-youth, and anti-betterment. If it disproportionately affects minorities you can also hint at racism. Shrewd political move.

Especially going into the next election. You get the minorities and youth to show up to vote and they might be banking on an issue like this to do so, you greatly increase a democratic victory in the presidential as well as retaking the senate.

So not only is this the right thing to do, it's also politically expedient.

If you're a democrat

 

[TPW]

This is how the White House operates. "Let's get back in front of the news cycle by coming out in favor of something that will poll at 50 percent or better. We know that budget conscious Republicans won't approve, so we can make ourselves look good and them look mean and stingy."

Pathetic. But half of the country really eats this JV stuff up. Bread and circuses.

You lost me at "budget conscious republicans".

Both sides spend too much, the only difference is on what.

You'll get no argument from me that establishment Republicans and Democrats have very much in common with regards to their spending habits. However, there is also certainly a conservative element within the party which decries this kind of populist pandering on the taxpayer's dime. The Democrats have no such budget conscious element within their ranks.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This is nothing more than cynical politics cleverly disguised as a financial academic rewards program.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

A lot of the fundamental "you didn't build that" philosophy and the inability of many to understand it's truth at play here. I've got mine, you get yours misses the point so badly as to suggest egocentrism bordering on psychosis.

Just to clarify, what you're saying is that I'm psychotic for being willing to pay for my own kids' education?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A lot of the fundamental "you didn't build that" philosophy and the inability of many to understand it's truth at play here. I've got mine, you get yours misses the point so badly as to suggest egocentrism bordering on psychosis.

Egocentrism. So the personal, the self, the inner life, the individual, what role does that have for you? None? Is it all subjected to the needs of society?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You'll get no argument from me that establishment Republicans and Democrats have very much in common with regards to their spending habits. However, there is also certainly a conservative element within the party which decries this kind of populist pandering on the taxpayer's dime. The Democrats have no such budget conscious element within their ranks..

I don't think the bolded part is true. There are lots of liberal policy wonks out there who understand that middle-class entitlement programs generally are not good public policy. It's probably not too hard to find people at Brookings, for example, who will tell you that the mortgage interest deduction is a bad idea, and that the "Cadillac tax" on health insurance has a lot to recommend it. Granted, that's not the same as being a budget hawk, but it's still pretty much the opposite of knee-jerk populism.

 

[Joe T]

A lot of the fundamental "you didn't build that" philosophy and the inability of many to understand it's truth at play here. I've got mine, you get yours misses the point so badly as to suggest egocentrism bordering on psychosis.

Just to clarify, what you're saying is that I'm psychotic for being willing to pay for my own kids' education?

Wow. I thought he was just trying to fit as many political talking points and catch phrases as possible into two incoherent sentences.

 

[Jayrod]

If I were in charge I would filter the students after middle school, with high school strictly being college prep, and take the rest and move them to vocational school. Give the college-bound kids the resources to be successful and give the rest the opportunity to gain employable skills

This is exactly what Germany does.

 

[humpback]

Any chance we can stop calling things "free" that aren't?

 

[greenroom]

Good lord people education is not a right, community college is not a right, health care is not a right, leisure time and a whole host of things are not rights. Obama is talking about a constitution and a country that does not exist. How about we just pay our bills with the money we have, have a balanced budget and then make decisions from there?

You say education is not a right then why do we have to put children in school? Sounds like we are back in the 1800's

People need education, and it is a right to be educated in this country. That is what makes the US great is that we educate our youth to that they can be better than us in the future.

You say health care is not a right? So then do we just leave people on the side of the streets that are sick? That seems safe and like we are back in the 1800's. Health Care is a right, and guess what it benefits society to have a healthy population.

Leisure time is not a right, you have the choice to work 24 hours a day, not be around your family, but does that make a great country? I say not.

There are a ton of things that are not covered by the US Constitution, but guess what we are better because we have moved forward with times and technology. To me it seems like you would rather have the US back in say the 1800's or early 1900's when life was simple. There was no TV, internet, Fan Football, but we worked our a$$ off lived off the land. But you would get sick adn die of simple illnesses, and as a child you would be lucky to get any education at all.

 

[NutterButter]

Any chance we can stop calling things "free" that aren't?

Like freedom

 

[FUBAR]

BTW the Common Core haters need to start looking at the data. It is not what they are making it out to be and is having success.

Seems to be bringing up the bottom but not helping the better students.

Seems to me bringing up the bottom is a pretty good thing.

If the cost is to cap the growth at the top, I'd disagree.

The kids at the top are not capped. They just don't seem as brilliant when the kids at the bottom start to catch up.

They're not so much capped as not provided the same opportunities they would have been when we were in school.

I was lucky that my teachers in elementary school and middle school saw potential in some of us. We were in gifted and talented programs in 4th grade doing math and other subjects a year ahead through 4th-8th grade, we were allowed independent study in high school. Many of those opportunities seem to be lost. Not all, and our kids have had some extra programs but they seem to be fewer.

 

[FUBAR]

Any chance we can stop calling things "free" that aren't?

Any chance we can stop arguing about rights when the question is what's best for our country?

 

[James Daulton]

A lot of the fundamental "you didn't build that" philosophy and the inability of many to understand it's truth at play here. I've got mine, you get yours misses the point so badly as to suggest egocentrism bordering on psychosis.

Egocentrism. So the personal, the self, the inner life, the individual, what role does that have for you? None? Is it all subjected to the needs of society?

It's a good thing our grandfathers in WWI and WWII put society above their personal interests. Jeez.

 

[FUBAR]

A lot of the fundamental "you didn't build that" philosophy and the inability of many to understand it's truth at play here. I've got mine, you get yours misses the point so badly as to suggest egocentrism bordering on psychosis.

Egocentrism. So the personal, the self, the inner life, the individual, what role does that have for you? None? Is it all subjected to the needs of society?

It's a good thing our grandfathers in WWI and WWII put society above their personal interests. Jeez.

Hasn't happened on a large scale in 70 years thanks to the hippies.

 

[James Daulton]

If I were in charge I would filter the students after middle school, with high school strictly being college prep, and take the rest and move them to vocational school. Give the college-bound kids the resources to be successful and give the rest the opportunity to gain employable skills

This is exactly what Germany does.

It would be great if this kind of thing would pass in this country. But unfortunately, I doubt it that today's parents would be cool with a system where their child doesn't at least have a chance at going to college. And I mean a chance outside their own actual ability.

 

[James Daulton]

A lot of the fundamental "you didn't build that" philosophy and the inability of many to understand it's truth at play here. I've got mine, you get yours misses the point so badly as to suggest egocentrism bordering on psychosis.

Egocentrism. So the personal, the self, the inner life, the individual, what role does that have for you? None? Is it all subjected to the needs of society?

It's a good thing our grandfathers in WWI and WWII put society above their personal interests. Jeez.

Hasn't happened on a large scale in 70 years thanks to the hippies.

Can you imagine how we'd respond to a threat that called for a massive call to arms these days? What, you want me to leave my lawyer job to join the Marines? No freaking way! Sure, I'll retool my plant to build war materials...for $1 billion dollars.

 

[Dickies]

Community college is not where student loan debt is being created. It is already affordable, so I do not really understand why we would make it free. As others have said we do not need more people with AAs, we need more vocational training. I firmly believe the entire education system needs an overhaul. It's not that we do not have good schools/teachers, but that we have a bulk of the student base disinterested in the curriculum. We dump all of our resources into getting the failing students up to a passing level instead of improving our top students into the leading innovators of the future. If I were in charge I would filter the students after middle school, with high school strictly being college prep, and take the rest and move them to vocational school. Give the college-bound kids the resources to be successful and give the rest the opportunity to gain employable skills

Do high schools not already have college prep tracks? I thought it was pretty standard to have a track that leads to AP courses for college-bound students.

They do, of course, but high school as a whole is not college prep. There are segments of the student population who treat it as such, and I think that all high school students should. If they have no intentions of going to college or want to learn a skilled trade, then lets stop forcing them to go to high school and create an alternative.