Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let them pay for educating their employees
Why should taxpayers do it for them?

Neither should be. Let them pay for their own education.

K-12 is paid by taxpayers
Employers are given an educated workforce at taxpayer expense

I don't believe school should be paid by the taxpayers. Seriously, whats coming out of our k-12 now isn't what you would call educated.

About 60% of my property taxes go to our schools to educate other people's kids. I don't have any kids in school and never have; neither do my tenants.

IMO, if you want to have kids, you clothe them, you feed them, you educate them, and if you can't do those things for your children, you have no business having them in the first place. Now they want us to fund their education right into their mid to late 20's.

A couple of years ago I went downtown to a hearing to have my property taxes reevaluated. The school sent their lawyer downtown to fight me. When I got the decision through mail, I was very unhappy, so I filed an appeal which is held over 100 miles away at our state capital. I didn't attend, but the school once again sent their lawyer down there to fight against my claim. Luckily for me, the judges there were fair, and a three panel judge ruled unanimously in my favor.

The point is that this public education farce is a racket. The school was not happy with the tens of thousands I already paid to educate children that aren't mine, but they fought me because I wanted to pay a little less. And where did the school board get the money to pay their lawyer to attend the two hearings????

I agree 100 percent. You shouldnt have to pay a dime to educate someone else.

When other people pay for your things you have, you don't take as much of an interest.

When my niece started skipping school and her grades began to suffer, my sister took immediate acton. She grounded my niece indefinately. She sat with her every night catching up on her studies, double checking her homework. She made sure my niece had very minimal television time and what she did on the internet was mostly for school. She called the school twice a week to measure her progress.

That girl turned things around real quick. Before you knew it, she was back to an A student again and later in life graduated college at the top of half her classes. That's what you do when you're paying 15K a year for your child to attend a good religious school. You make sure you're going to get your monies worth.

With public school kids, the parents throw them on the bus and once those doors close, the kid is the teachers problem.

I think if the parents paid for their kids education, or at least a good chunk of it instead of us taxpayers, those parents would be more involved with their studies. When the kid doesn't amount to anything, they blame the schools instead of themselves. Public school the way it's run around here is a disadvantage to the teachers, taxpayers, and the students.

 

[candycorn]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a fucking gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is fucking next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Good post.

I think the winning position is to have a system like Social Security except in reverse....

If you want....you can go to school for the equivalent of 60 semester hours ( Associate's Degree) up front. This doesn't need to be at a formal college with a quad, study hall, etc... If you want to use it at UTI or University of Phoenix or at the local beauty academy...feel free. There will be a monetary value tied to it and you get that money up front to get some vocational training or have a college experience or whatever.

Then over the next 40 years of your life...you pay that back by having money taken out of your paychecks (not to exceed $100 per paycheck) plus a small percentage interest.

So if you're 18 and graduating tomorrow, you have the first 2 years (60 hours) of college/trade school paid for in advance. This includes tuition, books, fees (not housing or meals).

If you're a 26-40 y/o no-life loser doing nothing, you get 2 years (60 hours) of college/trade school paid for in advance. However, your payback is going to be accelerated since you likely won't have a 40 year work life in front of you.

If you've completed some college already, you can apply these funds to finish your studies or at least knock out a chunk of it.

If you're mid-career and are looking to make a change either to a new career or enhance your skills, you're able to use this program without the accelerated pay-back. So if you're a welder and want to learn underwater welding...you can do that and pay it back later. If you have a dead -end job in internal audit at a hospital (lol), you can perhaps take a nursing course and become more fulfilled. This would be based no your previous work history and track record...so the government isn't taking a really bad risk of you not paying off it's investment.

And for those who are late in their careers, there is an exception where studies will be either at a reduced costs or they will be tied to your SS payments thus far.

The good news is that it's something for everyone. If you want to take a course that doesn't tie directly into a career...you can but remember you're on the hook for the pay-back. If you want to take 60 hours of dodgeball...feel free...but you're on the hook for the payback. If you are using it for career advancement or technical training...you can certainly pay it back sooner and not have deductions per paycheck.

Impressive. You really thought this through.

I am not against the government helping people go to college...at all. Just so long as they pay it back later.

Apparently, Bernie Sanders free college plan would include free room/board/expenses for all lower income students. Well, you probably know what that means...party time. Almost every young, broke teenager out of high school who has no idea what he/she wants to do - will just go to college for four yours absolutely free. Get a part time job for beer money, take easy courses and party for four years. It will be a 'right of passage'....all on the taxpayers dime. Most won't care what the degree is...just so long as it is easy.
There will be MASSIVE abuse of the system...and I would not blame the students one bit.

In fact - who would NOT go - not that many? You're living on the streets? Go to college for four years, take anything and have food/shelter/living expenses taken care of. Single mothers. Substance abusers. Seniors with little income (I went to university with a senior citizen - gutsy lady she was).
It would be glorified welfare.

I know (assume) progressives mean well. But why do they simply refuse to see that the larger the government program - the larger the abuse of that program?

I can't argue with any of that. Sacrifice-free welfare schemes are the new black.

Just a few observations:

One thing is this…I sort of described a “free for all” on this. It won’t be. There will be payments for publicly funded colleges and universities. There will be a different scale for other places of learning.

PFC&U: For group A—kids just out of school. All of the PFC&U’s are scored for their lowest tuition rate. Usually that means in-state or in-district tuition. If you live at 1234 Main Street, San Diego, CA, the PFC&U’s in your area are scored. Whatever the figure is for those institutions (Tuition, Fees, Books) that is what is available. If you want to attend college outside your area, whatever the score is in that area is what you get—assumingly more expensive in some areas and less expensive in others. So if you want to go to Cal State Berkley, you can get that paid for but any fees they charge for being 400 miles away or whatever it is, room, and board…all that is on you. Going out of state….even more costs are deferred to you. If the program wanted to put a penalty on those “carpetbagging”, I’m good with that because you have cheaper alternatives. This will hopefully keep the onslaught at the University of Miami to a minimum. LOL

Private schools? I’d drop the payment available to them to steer folks toward PFC&U’s. This helps fund these vital institutions, strengthens them, and I feel provides more to students. That is for the group A.

For the others-wayward students, mid-career, and seniors; I would put a plan in place similar to the above but have the payments be more competitive for the private institutions. This is because scheduling classes at a college can be very hard if you’re working all day; private places have more flexibility.

Another thing is the re-payment. The $2600-$3000 per year isn’t for life. Once you’ve paid back what you consumed plus some interest, you are done. It would be in your interest to pay back quicker and you could of course. And once you’ve paid off, you are eligible to re-enter if necessary. There is no double-dipping though. You can’t have multiple payments going at the same time.

Finally;
What I would love to get to is this: Studying for the sake of learning. It’s great to go to school to increase your paycheck, get a new paycheck or improve your career outlook. But if you want to take a class for self-improvement outside the vocational aspects, you should be able to and government should encourage it. Ever have a toilet that won’t stop running? If you want, you can take a course in plumbing and never have to pay a plumber again. If you want to learn how to fix your car, by all means, do so. If you want to get into shape after an injury or disease diagnosis…maybe you can find a course for that which will improve your quality of life. Lean wood working? Sure. Art appreciation…great. Learn Guitar? Sure. Whatever.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Neither should be. Let them pay for their own education.

K-12 is paid by taxpayers
Employers are given an educated workforce at taxpayer expense

I don't believe school should be paid by the taxpayers. Seriously, whats coming out of our k-12 now isn't what you would call educated.

About 60% of my property taxes go to our schools to educate other people's kids. I don't have any kids in school and never have; neither do my tenants.

IMO, if you want to have kids, you clothe them, you feed them, you educate them, and if you can't do those things for your children, you have no business having them in the first place. Now they want us to fund their education right into their mid to late 20's.

A couple of years ago I went downtown to a hearing to have my property taxes reevaluated. The school sent their lawyer downtown to fight me. When I got the decision through mail, I was very unhappy, so I filed an appeal which is held over 100 miles away at our state capital. I didn't attend, but the school once again sent their lawyer down there to fight against my claim. Luckily for me, the judges there were fair, and a three panel judge ruled unanimously in my favor.

The point is that this public education farce is a racket. The school was not happy with the tens of thousands I already paid to educate children that aren't mine, but they fought me because I wanted to pay a little less. And where did the school board get the money to pay their lawyer to attend the two hearings????

I agree 100 percent. You shouldnt have to pay a dime to educate someone else.

When other people pay for your things you have, you don't take as much of an interest.

When my niece started skipping school and her grades began to suffer, my sister took immediate acton. She grounded my niece indefinately. She sat with her every night catching up on her studies, double checking her homework. She made sure my niece had very minimal television time and what she did on the internet was mostly for school. She called the school twice a week to measure her progress.

That girl turned things around real quick. Before you knew it, she was back to an A student again and later in life graduated college at the top of half her classes. That's what you do when you're paying 15K a year for your child to attend a good religious school. You make sure you're going to get your monies worth.

With public school kids, the parents throw them on the bus and once those doors close, the kid is the teachers problem.

I think if the parents paid for their kids education, or at least a good chunk of it instead of us taxpayers, those parents would be more involved with their studies. When the kid doesn't amount to anything, they blame the schools instead of themselves. Public school the way it's run around here is a disadvantage to the teachers, taxpayers, and the students.

Didn't you just say the problem was with the students and the parents?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

K-12 is paid by taxpayers
Employers are given an educated workforce at taxpayer expense

I don't believe school should be paid by the taxpayers. Seriously, whats coming out of our k-12 now isn't what you would call educated.

About 60% of my property taxes go to our schools to educate other people's kids. I don't have any kids in school and never have; neither do my tenants.

IMO, if you want to have kids, you clothe them, you feed them, you educate them, and if you can't do those things for your children, you have no business having them in the first place. Now they want us to fund their education right into their mid to late 20's.

A couple of years ago I went downtown to a hearing to have my property taxes reevaluated. The school sent their lawyer downtown to fight me. When I got the decision through mail, I was very unhappy, so I filed an appeal which is held over 100 miles away at our state capital. I didn't attend, but the school once again sent their lawyer down there to fight against my claim. Luckily for me, the judges there were fair, and a three panel judge ruled unanimously in my favor.

The point is that this public education farce is a racket. The school was not happy with the tens of thousands I already paid to educate children that aren't mine, but they fought me because I wanted to pay a little less. And where did the school board get the money to pay their lawyer to attend the two hearings????

I agree 100 percent. You shouldnt have to pay a dime to educate someone else.

When other people pay for your things you have, you don't take as much of an interest.

When my niece started skipping school and her grades began to suffer, my sister took immediate acton. She grounded my niece indefinately. She sat with her every night catching up on her studies, double checking her homework. She made sure my niece had very minimal television time and what she did on the internet was mostly for school. She called the school twice a week to measure her progress.

That girl turned things around real quick. Before you knew it, she was back to an A student again and later in life graduated college at the top of half her classes. That's what you do when you're paying 15K a year for your child to attend a good religious school. You make sure you're going to get your monies worth.

With public school kids, the parents throw them on the bus and once those doors close, the kid is the teachers problem.

I think if the parents paid for their kids education, or at least a good chunk of it instead of us taxpayers, those parents would be more involved with their studies. When the kid doesn't amount to anything, they blame the schools instead of themselves. Public school the way it's run around here is a disadvantage to the teachers, taxpayers, and the students.

Didn't you just say the problem was with the students and the parents?

Yes I did, why? If the parent(s) aren't going to participate in the education of their children, then there are some kids that will fail no matter what you do.

 

[Flopper]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a fucking gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is fucking next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Debt Free Plan
The debt free plan is not what it seems. Right now, if your family income is low enough (family income less than $25,000 every year and the family receives some form of federal social welfare program) and the student has made good grades in high school, he get's a free ride through 4 years of college. However, that free ride assumes the student lives in the dorm, eats about two meals a day, doesn't spend money on clothes, dental, or medical expenses, transportation, entertainment, or any expenses when school is not in session. It also assume that the student is able to get a work study job at school. It also assumes the student will graduate in four years. The average student take 6 years. The bottom line is even the most needy students today end up with a loan between $10,000 and $40,000. However, only 5% qualify for this much federal aid.

So what will the debt free program likely look like? IMHO, it will be exactly the same federal financial aid program we have now with much higher income limits so more students are covered and benefits are higher.

This program will increase college enrollment but not by much. The major change will be smaller college loans for middle class families and an increase in federal spending. It is not likely to be debt free for all students.

Free College Plan
This plan just makes community colleges and extension of high school. Since students will be able to earn two years of college credit, it can reduce their time in a 4 year school by 2 years for those who choose to go on to college. It could also provide training for those going into para-professional jobs in fields such healthcare and technology.

I think both plans would be workable but expensive. The Free College Plan will take several years to fully implement because we don't have enough community colleges. However it creates a problem for 4 yr. schools. They will have excess space since many students will be going to a community college for the first two years.

 

[Flopper]

Neither should be. Let them pay for their own education.

K-12 is paid by taxpayers
Employers are given an educated workforce at taxpayer expense

I don't believe school should be paid by the taxpayers. Seriously, whats coming out of our k-12 now isn't what you would call educated.

About 60% of my property taxes go to our schools to educate other people's kids. I don't have any kids in school and never have; neither do my tenants.

IMO, if you want to have kids, you clothe them, you feed them, you educate them, and if you can't do those things for your children, you have no business having them in the first place. Now they want us to fund their education right into their mid to late 20's.

A couple of years ago I went downtown to a hearing to have my property taxes reevaluated. The school sent their lawyer downtown to fight me. When I got the decision through mail, I was very unhappy, so I filed an appeal which is held over 100 miles away at our state capital. I didn't attend, but the school once again sent their lawyer down there to fight against my claim. Luckily for me, the judges there were fair, and a three panel judge ruled unanimously in my favor.

The point is that this public education farce is a racket. The school was not happy with the tens of thousands I already paid to educate children that aren't mine, but they fought me because I wanted to pay a little less. And where did the school board get the money to pay their lawyer to attend the two hearings????

I agree 100 percent. You shouldnt have to pay a dime to educate someone else.

When other people pay for your things you have, you don't take as much of an interest.

When my niece started skipping school and her grades began to suffer, my sister took immediate acton. She grounded my niece indefinately. She sat with her every night catching up on her studies, double checking her homework. She made sure my niece had very minimal television time and what she did on the internet was mostly for school. She called the school twice a week to measure her progress.

That girl turned things around real quick. Before you knew it, she was back to an A student again and later in life graduated college at the top of half her classes. That's what you do when you're paying 15K a year for your child to attend a good religious school. You make sure you're going to get your monies worth.

With public school kids, the parents throw them on the bus and once those doors close, the kid is the teachers problem.

I think if the parents paid for their kids education, or at least a good chunk of it instead of us taxpayers, those parents would be more involved with their studies. When the kid doesn't amount to anything, they blame the schools instead of themselves. Public school the way it's run around here is a disadvantage to the teachers, taxpayers, and the students.

Ray, new college students today pay little attention to the cost because anything their parents, scholarships, of financial aid does not pay goes into a college loan. Typically students pay no attention to their college loan until they get toward the end. Then it becomes a "Oh My God, how in the hell am I going to pay this?"

I took my granddaughter to college last fall and sat through much of her new student program with her and her friends. Believe me, these kids are not concerned at all about the costs nor their loan. They are interested in decorating their dorm room, class schedules, meal plans, and parties. Most new freshmen are 16 to 18 years old. They are still teenagers and they are bat shit crazy. Most of them have never had a bank account, paid a bill, bought a bus ticket or paid a parking ticket.

It is very difficult for parents to be involved because colleges today don't deal with parents. They deal with the student. Recruiters prefer to meet with students, not the parents. Applications are done online by the student, acceptance letters go to student as well as all communications. The tuition bills go to the student and the student decides how it's going to be paid. They make decisions on their loan. Usually they ask their parent but not always. Remember the age we are dealing with. They are trying to prove they are independent. Somewhere around their third year they wake up and discover they have a huge college loan and they still have 3 years to go and Mommy and Daddy are not going to pay off their loan.

I think most high school students after graduating should live at home and go to a local community for the first 2 years. That not only saves a bundle of money but gives them time to mature.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

K-12 is paid by taxpayers
Employers are given an educated workforce at taxpayer expense

I don't believe school should be paid by the taxpayers. Seriously, whats coming out of our k-12 now isn't what you would call educated.

About 60% of my property taxes go to our schools to educate other people's kids. I don't have any kids in school and never have; neither do my tenants.

IMO, if you want to have kids, you clothe them, you feed them, you educate them, and if you can't do those things for your children, you have no business having them in the first place. Now they want us to fund their education right into their mid to late 20's.

A couple of years ago I went downtown to a hearing to have my property taxes reevaluated. The school sent their lawyer downtown to fight me. When I got the decision through mail, I was very unhappy, so I filed an appeal which is held over 100 miles away at our state capital. I didn't attend, but the school once again sent their lawyer down there to fight against my claim. Luckily for me, the judges there were fair, and a three panel judge ruled unanimously in my favor.

The point is that this public education farce is a racket. The school was not happy with the tens of thousands I already paid to educate children that aren't mine, but they fought me because I wanted to pay a little less. And where did the school board get the money to pay their lawyer to attend the two hearings????

I agree 100 percent. You shouldnt have to pay a dime to educate someone else.

When other people pay for your things you have, you don't take as much of an interest.

When my niece started skipping school and her grades began to suffer, my sister took immediate acton. She grounded my niece indefinately. She sat with her every night catching up on her studies, double checking her homework. She made sure my niece had very minimal television time and what she did on the internet was mostly for school. She called the school twice a week to measure her progress.

That girl turned things around real quick. Before you knew it, she was back to an A student again and later in life graduated college at the top of half her classes. That's what you do when you're paying 15K a year for your child to attend a good religious school. You make sure you're going to get your monies worth.

With public school kids, the parents throw them on the bus and once those doors close, the kid is the teachers problem.

I think if the parents paid for their kids education, or at least a good chunk of it instead of us taxpayers, those parents would be more involved with their studies. When the kid doesn't amount to anything, they blame the schools instead of themselves. Public school the way it's run around here is a disadvantage to the teachers, taxpayers, and the students.

Ray, new college students today pay little attention to the cost because anything their parents, scholarships, of financial aid does not pay goes into a college loan. Typically students pay no attention to their college loan until they get toward the end. Then it becomes a "Oh My God, how in the hell am I going to pay this?"

I took my granddaughter to college last fall and sat through much of her new student program with her and her friends. Believe me, these kids are not concerned at all about the costs nor their loan. They are interested in decorating their dorm room, class schedules, meal plans, and parties. Most new freshmen are 16 to 18 years old. They are still teenagers and they are bat shit crazy. Most of them have never had a bank account, paid a bill, bought a bus ticket or paid a parking ticket.

It is very difficult for parents to be involved because colleges today don't deal with parents. They deal with the student. Recruiters prefer to meet with students, not the parents. Applications are done online by the student, acceptance letters go to student as well as all communications. The tuition bills go to the student and the student decides how it's going to be paid. They make decisions on their loan. Usually they ask their parent but not always. Remember the age we are dealing with. They are trying to prove they are independent. Somewhere around their third year they wake up and discover they have a huge college loan and they still have 3 years to go and Mommy and Daddy are not going to pay off their loan.

I think most high school students after graduating should live at home and go to a local community for the first 2 years. That not only saves a bundle of money but gives them time to mature.

Actually I was addressing primary education and not college. I think a considerable amount of kids do realize the debt they are getting into, however they have this fantasy of graduating college and getting a six figure job somewhere which would give them the capability to erase their debt in a matter of a few years.

In many cases that's not true. College gives these kids a world of dreams that are usually only a realty for a few. As I stated earlier, my nephews ex-wife took four years of advertising. She had no interest in advertising, but was promised gold paved roads if she chose this opportunity. She now works at a bank. Prior to that, she was renting apartments.

But back to the OP, public college is not in the works for a country that's 21 trillion in debt and growing. We simply cannot keep depending on government for everything. It's like I was telling my father yesterday when we were discussing my niece and nephews college debt. I'm going to go to work everyday, make money which gets taxed, and the government will use my tax money to fund the eduction of my future doctor or lawyer. Then when I need professional help, I go to one of those lawyers I paid the eduction for, and he or she charges me $500.00 for a twenty minute consultation.

College is an investment no different than real estate, stocks, commodities or a business. Taxpayers should not be funding investments for people.

 

[Flopper]

I don't believe school should be paid by the taxpayers. Seriously, whats coming out of our k-12 now isn't what you would call educated.

About 60% of my property taxes go to our schools to educate other people's kids. I don't have any kids in school and never have; neither do my tenants.

IMO, if you want to have kids, you clothe them, you feed them, you educate them, and if you can't do those things for your children, you have no business having them in the first place. Now they want us to fund their education right into their mid to late 20's.

A couple of years ago I went downtown to a hearing to have my property taxes reevaluated. The school sent their lawyer downtown to fight me. When I got the decision through mail, I was very unhappy, so I filed an appeal which is held over 100 miles away at our state capital. I didn't attend, but the school once again sent their lawyer down there to fight against my claim. Luckily for me, the judges there were fair, and a three panel judge ruled unanimously in my favor.

The point is that this public education farce is a racket. The school was not happy with the tens of thousands I already paid to educate children that aren't mine, but they fought me because I wanted to pay a little less. And where did the school board get the money to pay their lawyer to attend the two hearings????

I agree 100 percent. You shouldnt have to pay a dime to educate someone else.

When other people pay for your things you have, you don't take as much of an interest.

When my niece started skipping school and her grades began to suffer, my sister took immediate acton. She grounded my niece indefinately. She sat with her every night catching up on her studies, double checking her homework. She made sure my niece had very minimal television time and what she did on the internet was mostly for school. She called the school twice a week to measure her progress.

That girl turned things around real quick. Before you knew it, she was back to an A student again and later in life graduated college at the top of half her classes. That's what you do when you're paying 15K a year for your child to attend a good religious school. You make sure you're going to get your monies worth.

With public school kids, the parents throw them on the bus and once those doors close, the kid is the teachers problem.

I think if the parents paid for their kids education, or at least a good chunk of it instead of us taxpayers, those parents would be more involved with their studies. When the kid doesn't amount to anything, they blame the schools instead of themselves. Public school the way it's run around here is a disadvantage to the teachers, taxpayers, and the students.

Ray, new college students today pay little attention to the cost because anything their parents, scholarships, of financial aid does not pay goes into a college loan. Typically students pay no attention to their college loan until they get toward the end. Then it becomes a "Oh My God, how in the hell am I going to pay this?"

I took my granddaughter to college last fall and sat through much of her new student program with her and her friends. Believe me, these kids are not concerned at all about the costs nor their loan. They are interested in decorating their dorm room, class schedules, meal plans, and parties. Most new freshmen are 16 to 18 years old. They are still teenagers and they are bat shit crazy. Most of them have never had a bank account, paid a bill, bought a bus ticket or paid a parking ticket.

It is very difficult for parents to be involved because colleges today don't deal with parents. They deal with the student. Recruiters prefer to meet with students, not the parents. Applications are done online by the student, acceptance letters go to student as well as all communications. The tuition bills go to the student and the student decides how it's going to be paid. They make decisions on their loan. Usually they ask their parent but not always. Remember the age we are dealing with. They are trying to prove they are independent. Somewhere around their third year they wake up and discover they have a huge college loan and they still have 3 years to go and Mommy and Daddy are not going to pay off their loan.

I think most high school students after graduating should live at home and go to a local community for the first 2 years. That not only saves a bundle of money but gives them time to mature.

Actually I was addressing primary education and not college. I think a considerable amount of kids do realize the debt they are getting into, however they have this fantasy of graduating college and getting a six figure job somewhere which would give them the capability to erase their debt in a matter of a few years.

In many cases that's not true. College gives these kids a world of dreams that are usually only a realty for a few. As I stated earlier, my nephews ex-wife took four years of advertising. She had no interest in advertising, but was promised gold paved roads if she chose this opportunity. She now works at a bank. Prior to that, she was renting apartments.

But back to the OP, public college is not in the works for a country that's 21 trillion in debt and growing. We simply cannot keep depending on government for everything. It's like I was telling my father yesterday when we were discussing my niece and nephews college debt. I'm going to go to work everyday, make money which gets taxed, and the government will use my tax money to fund the eduction of my future doctor or lawyer. Then when I need professional help, I go to one of those lawyers I paid the eduction for, and he or she charges me $500.00 for a twenty minute consultation.

College is an investment no different than real estate, stocks, commodities or a business. Taxpayers should not be funding investments for people.

If we end up with either plan, I believe free community college is a better choice because.

• It creates a career path for kids not planning on a 4 year degree with 2 year para-professional degree in many of the high demand areas such as technology, healthcare, construction.
• For those that are going to continue to a 4 year degree, it lowers the overall cost by over 50%.
• It reduces both college loans and federal and state aid to education
• Lastly, it encourages kids to remain at home the first two years out of high school giving time to mature, work and decide on their future.

 

[rightwinger]

Let them pay for educating their employees
Why should taxpayers do it for them?

Neither should be. Let them pay for their own education.

K-12 is paid by taxpayers
Employers are given an educated workforce at taxpayer expense

Yes they are, but shouldn't us taxpayers be reimbursed for the tens of thousands of dollars we spent on those kids?

Yes we should

By those who profit off of those skills

Well then if it's the employers responsibility to pay for your personal education to better yourself, shouldn't they be paying for your home as well? After all, it's to the employers advantage their workers have a place to live. And how about your auto payments? It's to the employers advantage their employees are well fed too.

I'm so glad I wasn't born a Democrat. I would never want to go through life believing that I should be coddled by everybody else to get by in life.

The employer is not making a profit off of that house.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't believe school should be paid by the taxpayers. Seriously, whats coming out of our k-12 now isn't what you would call educated.

About 60% of my property taxes go to our schools to educate other people's kids. I don't have any kids in school and never have; neither do my tenants.

IMO, if you want to have kids, you clothe them, you feed them, you educate them, and if you can't do those things for your children, you have no business having them in the first place. Now they want us to fund their education right into their mid to late 20's.

A couple of years ago I went downtown to a hearing to have my property taxes reevaluated. The school sent their lawyer downtown to fight me. When I got the decision through mail, I was very unhappy, so I filed an appeal which is held over 100 miles away at our state capital. I didn't attend, but the school once again sent their lawyer down there to fight against my claim. Luckily for me, the judges there were fair, and a three panel judge ruled unanimously in my favor.

The point is that this public education farce is a racket. The school was not happy with the tens of thousands I already paid to educate children that aren't mine, but they fought me because I wanted to pay a little less. And where did the school board get the money to pay their lawyer to attend the two hearings????

I agree 100 percent. You shouldnt have to pay a dime to educate someone else.

When other people pay for your things you have, you don't take as much of an interest.

When my niece started skipping school and her grades began to suffer, my sister took immediate acton. She grounded my niece indefinately. She sat with her every night catching up on her studies, double checking her homework. She made sure my niece had very minimal television time and what she did on the internet was mostly for school. She called the school twice a week to measure her progress.

That girl turned things around real quick. Before you knew it, she was back to an A student again and later in life graduated college at the top of half her classes. That's what you do when you're paying 15K a year for your child to attend a good religious school. You make sure you're going to get your monies worth.

With public school kids, the parents throw them on the bus and once those doors close, the kid is the teachers problem.

I think if the parents paid for their kids education, or at least a good chunk of it instead of us taxpayers, those parents would be more involved with their studies. When the kid doesn't amount to anything, they blame the schools instead of themselves. Public school the way it's run around here is a disadvantage to the teachers, taxpayers, and the students.

Ray, new college students today pay little attention to the cost because anything their parents, scholarships, of financial aid does not pay goes into a college loan. Typically students pay no attention to their college loan until they get toward the end. Then it becomes a "Oh My God, how in the hell am I going to pay this?"

I took my granddaughter to college last fall and sat through much of her new student program with her and her friends. Believe me, these kids are not concerned at all about the costs nor their loan. They are interested in decorating their dorm room, class schedules, meal plans, and parties. Most new freshmen are 16 to 18 years old. They are still teenagers and they are bat shit crazy. Most of them have never had a bank account, paid a bill, bought a bus ticket or paid a parking ticket.

It is very difficult for parents to be involved because colleges today don't deal with parents. They deal with the student. Recruiters prefer to meet with students, not the parents. Applications are done online by the student, acceptance letters go to student as well as all communications. The tuition bills go to the student and the student decides how it's going to be paid. They make decisions on their loan. Usually they ask their parent but not always. Remember the age we are dealing with. They are trying to prove they are independent. Somewhere around their third year they wake up and discover they have a huge college loan and they still have 3 years to go and Mommy and Daddy are not going to pay off their loan.

I think most high school students after graduating should live at home and go to a local community for the first 2 years. That not only saves a bundle of money but gives them time to mature.

Actually I was addressing primary education and not college. I think a considerable amount of kids do realize the debt they are getting into, however they have this fantasy of graduating college and getting a six figure job somewhere which would give them the capability to erase their debt in a matter of a few years.

In many cases that's not true. College gives these kids a world of dreams that are usually only a realty for a few. As I stated earlier, my nephews ex-wife took four years of advertising. She had no interest in advertising, but was promised gold paved roads if she chose this opportunity. She now works at a bank. Prior to that, she was renting apartments.

But back to the OP, public college is not in the works for a country that's 21 trillion in debt and growing. We simply cannot keep depending on government for everything. It's like I was telling my father yesterday when we were discussing my niece and nephews college debt. I'm going to go to work everyday, make money which gets taxed, and the government will use my tax money to fund the eduction of my future doctor or lawyer. Then when I need professional help, I go to one of those lawyers I paid the eduction for, and he or she charges me $500.00 for a twenty minute consultation.

College is an investment no different than real estate, stocks, commodities or a business. Taxpayers should not be funding investments for people.

No, we can’t afford it

But we can afford slashing business taxes by 40 percent

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

About 60% of my property taxes go to our schools to educate other people's kids. I don't have any kids in school and never have; neither do my tenants.

IMO, if you want to have kids, you clothe them, you feed them, you educate them, and if you can't do those things for your children, you have no business having them in the first place. Now they want us to fund their education right into their mid to late 20's.

A couple of years ago I went downtown to a hearing to have my property taxes reevaluated. The school sent their lawyer downtown to fight me. When I got the decision through mail, I was very unhappy, so I filed an appeal which is held over 100 miles away at our state capital. I didn't attend, but the school once again sent their lawyer down there to fight against my claim. Luckily for me, the judges there were fair, and a three panel judge ruled unanimously in my favor.

The point is that this public education farce is a racket. The school was not happy with the tens of thousands I already paid to educate children that aren't mine, but they fought me because I wanted to pay a little less. And where did the school board get the money to pay their lawyer to attend the two hearings????

I agree 100 percent. You shouldnt have to pay a dime to educate someone else.

When other people pay for your things you have, you don't take as much of an interest.

When my niece started skipping school and her grades began to suffer, my sister took immediate acton. She grounded my niece indefinately. She sat with her every night catching up on her studies, double checking her homework. She made sure my niece had very minimal television time and what she did on the internet was mostly for school. She called the school twice a week to measure her progress.

That girl turned things around real quick. Before you knew it, she was back to an A student again and later in life graduated college at the top of half her classes. That's what you do when you're paying 15K a year for your child to attend a good religious school. You make sure you're going to get your monies worth.

With public school kids, the parents throw them on the bus and once those doors close, the kid is the teachers problem.

I think if the parents paid for their kids education, or at least a good chunk of it instead of us taxpayers, those parents would be more involved with their studies. When the kid doesn't amount to anything, they blame the schools instead of themselves. Public school the way it's run around here is a disadvantage to the teachers, taxpayers, and the students.

Ray, new college students today pay little attention to the cost because anything their parents, scholarships, of financial aid does not pay goes into a college loan. Typically students pay no attention to their college loan until they get toward the end. Then it becomes a "Oh My God, how in the hell am I going to pay this?"

I took my granddaughter to college last fall and sat through much of her new student program with her and her friends. Believe me, these kids are not concerned at all about the costs nor their loan. They are interested in decorating their dorm room, class schedules, meal plans, and parties. Most new freshmen are 16 to 18 years old. They are still teenagers and they are bat shit crazy. Most of them have never had a bank account, paid a bill, bought a bus ticket or paid a parking ticket.

It is very difficult for parents to be involved because colleges today don't deal with parents. They deal with the student. Recruiters prefer to meet with students, not the parents. Applications are done online by the student, acceptance letters go to student as well as all communications. The tuition bills go to the student and the student decides how it's going to be paid. They make decisions on their loan. Usually they ask their parent but not always. Remember the age we are dealing with. They are trying to prove they are independent. Somewhere around their third year they wake up and discover they have a huge college loan and they still have 3 years to go and Mommy and Daddy are not going to pay off their loan.

I think most high school students after graduating should live at home and go to a local community for the first 2 years. That not only saves a bundle of money but gives them time to mature.

Actually I was addressing primary education and not college. I think a considerable amount of kids do realize the debt they are getting into, however they have this fantasy of graduating college and getting a six figure job somewhere which would give them the capability to erase their debt in a matter of a few years.

In many cases that's not true. College gives these kids a world of dreams that are usually only a realty for a few. As I stated earlier, my nephews ex-wife took four years of advertising. She had no interest in advertising, but was promised gold paved roads if she chose this opportunity. She now works at a bank. Prior to that, she was renting apartments.

But back to the OP, public college is not in the works for a country that's 21 trillion in debt and growing. We simply cannot keep depending on government for everything. It's like I was telling my father yesterday when we were discussing my niece and nephews college debt. I'm going to go to work everyday, make money which gets taxed, and the government will use my tax money to fund the eduction of my future doctor or lawyer. Then when I need professional help, I go to one of those lawyers I paid the eduction for, and he or she charges me $500.00 for a twenty minute consultation.

College is an investment no different than real estate, stocks, commodities or a business. Taxpayers should not be funding investments for people.

No, we can’t afford it

But we can afford slashing business taxes by 40 percent

Well we didn't slash it 40%, so no problem there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Neither should be. Let them pay for their own education.

K-12 is paid by taxpayers
Employers are given an educated workforce at taxpayer expense

Yes they are, but shouldn't us taxpayers be reimbursed for the tens of thousands of dollars we spent on those kids?

Yes we should

By those who profit off of those skills

Well then if it's the employers responsibility to pay for your personal education to better yourself, shouldn't they be paying for your home as well? After all, it's to the employers advantage their workers have a place to live. And how about your auto payments? It's to the employers advantage their employees are well fed too.

I'm so glad I wasn't born a Democrat. I would never want to go through life believing that I should be coddled by everybody else to get by in life.

The employer is not making a profit off of that house.

The employer makes a profit with the machines he uses to create the product, should he pay for the education of the engineers that designed it? He makes a profit off the electricity he uses to make the product, should he pay for the education of the people who created the electric grid?

An employer makes profit from all his employees. If he didn't, he wouldn't' have a business. He can't pay for all their eduction because he's using their skills to create profit. The individual who acquired the knowledge is making profit, so he or she should pay for their own education.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a fucking gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is fucking next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Believing in Getting a Job Just for Going 4 Years Without a Job Shows How Stupid We All Are

Tell it to the spoiled Preppie pukes and their dumb-jock circus performers. If students aren't paid a salary plus free tuition, they aren't worth anything. As usual, the public debate is intentionally shifted away from the fact that this is class-biased indentured servitude even with free tuition.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a fucking gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is fucking next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Our society is demanding more education. Not just college but technical

Make the employers pay

Unpaid Education Violates Every Tenet of the Conservatives' Hypocritical Economics

Even without being forced to, any corporation that recruited the nation's smartest high-school graduates by offering them the same high allowance and paid-up tuition that plutocratic businessmen give to their sons would dominate its sector within a few years. It would be equivalent to an NFL team getting the whole first round of draft picks.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I tell you what? I will consider supporting a bill to pay off all the student loans of Americans on one condition?

Every, single person that has their student loan paid off by taxpayers has to have the word 'MOOCH' tattooed on their foreheads in big, red letters.


'Definition of mooch

2 transitive + intransitive : to get things from another or live off the generosity of others without providing any return payment or benefit'

Definition of MOOCH


And it must stay there for 20 years.

And if they are caught by authorities covering up/lasering it off before the two decade time limit...they instantly get their full student loan debt, back again.

Preppylovers Don't Belong in America

Then anyone born with a silver spoon in his mouth would be born with a MOOCH birthmark.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

At 85 I can still bench 250 8 times and run 10 k 3 times a week. I know 60 year olds that are overweight. They should pay higher insurance rates.

Hundreds of Millennia Set the Body's Reactions

The reason you're still alive is that the most ancient part of your consciousness gets the impression that you are making a vital contribution to your tribe's hunting.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Our society is demanding more education. Not just college but technical

Make the employers pay

If they're demanding more education, they're certainly not getting it in today's colleges.

They most certainly are

It is high tech employers they want
If employers demand employees with college degrees, let them foot the bill instead of taxpayers

Don't you have to have that college degree before you get the job?

If employers demand a college degree from their employees, let them pay for it by paying off the debt.

Maybe they won’t be so demanding

Let's look at that:

So I'm a kid out of college where my family paid all my expenses. Not so for a kid with no money who had to take out a bunch of loans.

Now both of us are after the same job. Which candidate do you think the employer will choose, me who is college debt free, or the poorer guy with 125K in college debt?

The Preppy Mafia

Class loyalty will make the Plute hire whoever reminds him of his own precious little boy.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a fucking gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is fucking next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Our society is demanding more education. Not just college but technical

Make the employers pay

What?

Yeah, that's going to work..... So my company, is going to pay for a worker to get a degree in Art History, and that worker isn't even going to stay with my company after graduation.

You think I'm doing that? I'll lay off my employees first, and move out of country, before wasting that much money on education.

Now if you mean paying for people to get education in something the company can use..... we already have that.

My company pays for training in positions we have on staff. And we've already been burned doing that. One of the women we trained just 6 months ago, sent her to a week of training, room and board, she already quit and is moving to a new job.

Why should we pay to educate people, when they leave?

And if you think that Wendy's is going to pay for someone's degree in marine biology, you are crazy.

Again, there are plenty of companies that do have training programs for free, and tuition reimbursement.

Had a lady that got a degree in management, through I believe Meijer. She's not a district manager.

The problem is not that there are not enough ways to get an education. The problem is people getting and education worth having, and being a person worth training.

The Dumbest (Real) College Courses

The people that 'go after it', end up getting somewhere. The people that don't, generally don't.

This isn't a problem of the cost of education. It's a problem is motivation, and having a work ethic.

Anyone can get a degree. Anyone. I had a co-worker that was taking one class a quarter. He was working a full time job, paying his way through, and got a degree in education and chemistry.

His parents were.... problematic. No support. No money. Nothing. He was paying for his own food. At least they let him sleep at his parents house, which was funny since neither parent lived at that house. (long screwed up story).... but the point is, a guy with no help, no money, but a willingness to work, was able to get a degree. Anyone can get a degree. It's a matter of effort and work ethic.

And he's debt free. Paid his way through.

You want to hire an employee with a masters in art history...you pay for it
You want to hire an engineer...pay for that

Why should the government subsidize your employees that you profit off of ?

What about a kid that only has a high school education? Should the company pay money for hiring blue collar workers as well?

The one who profits the most is the person that got the education. Advanced education is an investment, just like a house, stock, real estate or commodity. You invest money with the hope and expectation of getting that money back and a profit.

Low-IQ Graduates Believe That Sacrifice Has Merit, But It is Just Another Glorified Insult to Intelligence

College is for teenagers who are afraid to grow up. Graduates have no right to their jobs, because they didn't have to compete with those who deserve to be paid a high salary and awarded free tuition. Those who think this failed system should stay as it is (indentured servitude) know they would not even get accepted into college if the talent pool was enlarged by attracting teenagers who are not afraid to grow up.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A kid with only a high school education is going to struggle mightily.

If You Don't Pay College Students, You Get What You Pay For

That doesn't mean he deserves to, nor does it mean that brown-noses who submit to this academic system deserve their comforts.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

'A clear divide exists among 2020 presidential Democrats who are rolling out plans to tackle the student debt crisis, whether tuition-free or debt-free policies are the way to win voter support.

By the numbers: Student debt in the United States has reached $1.5 trillion, and is responsible for much of millennials and generation Z's anguish.

In Congress

• Congressional committees have launched hearings to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, which looks to discuss more affordability in college costs, student loan programs and more. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) reintroduced legislation to help students become debt free within 5 years of graduating.

Tuition free
These programs provide students 2 years of free tuition at participating state community colleges, associate-degree programs and vocational schools. The majority fall into the category of "last dollar" scholarships, indicating the program pays the difference in tuition after financial aid and grants have kicked in, per CNBC.

• Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is still running on his 2016 campaign promise to make college tuition free and debt free. In 2016, Sanders introduced a bill called the "College for All Act," making public college tuition-free to students through a partnership between the federal government.
• Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro supports tuition-free college.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) wants to eliminate tuition and fees at 4-year public colleges and universities. She also supports free community college tuition for everyone.
• New-age spiritual guru Marianne Williamson supports universal pre-school and free college.

Debt free
This idea aims to cover the costs associated with attending public college without requiring students to take out loans, by establishing federal matches for state spending on higher education and using those funds to fill unmet need for people pursuing degrees

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is running her campaign on students being debt free by using proceeds from her wealth tax. Warren is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. She has sponsored and co-sponsored several others including one in 2014 that allowed federal student loan borrowers to refinance their debt at a lower interest rate.
• Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.): She believes universal pre-K and college should be a "fundamental right," to be debt-free, The Atlantic reports. She is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill.
• Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.): Introduced a bill in 2018 for baby bonds, which attempted to close the racial-wealth gap in education. Booker is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill.
• Former Texas representative Beto O’Rourke has supported debt-free ideals. In 2018, he tweeted: "We should allow Texans who commit to working in in-demand fields and in underserved communities the chance to graduate debt free." O`Rourke co-sponsored Student Loan Affordability Act until 2015.
• Former tech executive Andrew Yang: Debt forgiveness plans and loan repayment plans, according to his campaign website.

Refinance student loans

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) rejected the idea of tuition-free college at a CNN town hall, but called for has called for free 2-year community college degrees. She offered up the idea to refinance loans and expand Pell grants.
• Former representative John Delaney has called for reforming bankruptcy laws so student loan debt can be discharged like all other debts as well as refinancing.

Mixed statements

• Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is a co-sponsor for the Schatz-Pocan bill and the Sanders bill. In February, she tweeted she'd "allow all students to refinance their loans at 4%" if she were elected president.'

Debt-free college: Where the 2020 presidential candidates stand


I can understand universal healthcare and the $15 minimum wage (I don't fully agree with them - but I can certainly understand the logic behind them).

But this is just bat shit nuts.

No one put a fucking gun to these students heads to go massively into debt...it was 100% their choosing. Why the 'f' do students suddenly deserve to have their tuition paid off by taxpayers? Why this generation and not previous generations? And what makes student loans more important then mortgages? Or business loans? Why have taxpayers pay off student loans but do nothing for low income people with heavy mortgages/debts or business loans (NOT that I am for paying those off either - but at least they make far more sense then just paying off student loans)? What is fucking next? Progressives want taxpayers to pay off their credit cards? Car payments? Gambling debts?

This is progressives being flat out selfish. Many progressives are under 30 with HUGE student debt. So naturally their first thought is themselves.

I will say it again - HELLO? You people voluntarily took the huge student loans. You have no one to blame for them but yourselves. They are 100% YOUR responsibility. Stop pawning your bad decisions on to the rest of America. You fucked up - you get yourselves out of it. It's called 'taking responsibility for your actions'. DUH.

Our society is demanding more education. Not just college but technical

Make the employers pay

What?

Yeah, that's going to work..... So my company, is going to pay for a worker to get a degree in Art History, and that worker isn't even going to stay with my company after graduation.

You think I'm doing that? I'll lay off my employees first, and move out of country, before wasting that much money on education.

Now if you mean paying for people to get education in something the company can use..... we already have that.

My company pays for training in positions we have on staff. And we've already been burned doing that. One of the women we trained just 6 months ago, sent her to a week of training, room and board, she already quit and is moving to a new job.

Why should we pay to educate people, when they leave?

And if you think that Wendy's is going to pay for someone's degree in marine biology, you are crazy.

Again, there are plenty of companies that do have training programs for free, and tuition reimbursement.

Had a lady that got a degree in management, through I believe Meijer. She's not a district manager.

The problem is not that there are not enough ways to get an education. The problem is people getting and education worth having, and being a person worth training.

The Dumbest (Real) College Courses

The people that 'go after it', end up getting somewhere. The people that don't, generally don't.

This isn't a problem of the cost of education. It's a problem is motivation, and having a work ethic.

Anyone can get a degree. Anyone. I had a co-worker that was taking one class a quarter. He was working a full time job, paying his way through, and got a degree in education and chemistry.

His parents were.... problematic. No support. No money. Nothing. He was paying for his own food. At least they let him sleep at his parents house, which was funny since neither parent lived at that house. (long screwed up story).... but the point is, a guy with no help, no money, but a willingness to work, was able to get a degree. Anyone can get a degree. It's a matter of effort and work ethic.

And he's debt free. Paid his way through.

You want to hire an employee with a masters in art history...you pay for it
You want to hire an engineer...pay for that

Why should the government subsidize your employees that you profit off of ?

First.... the government shouldn't subsidize anything. Stop doing that. You engage in stupid, does not obligate me an employer, to pay for your stupid. Just stop doing stupid.

Second, what Wendy's is looking for a masters in Art History? In fact, what company anywhere is looking for Art History majors?

See that's my point. None of the people who want a degree, are working for companies that require degrees.

If you think that Verizon Wireless, is going to pay for the 4-degree in electronic engineer, for an employee over at Wendy's that may not even want to work for Verizon, or may say they want to work for Verizon, until they get the degree and get a better offer elsewhere.... YOU ARE CRAZY.

Reminds me of my nephews ex-wife. She went four years to college for advertising. She works at a bank now I believe.

What company would want to hire her where her worthless degree is involved if they had to pay for that nonsense?

In Today's College, the Student Lives Like a Child. So He Winds Up With the Superficial and Dishonest Mind of a Child

Typical Diploma Dumbo logic. The most productive system will be that an individual business pays the talented high-school graduate to major in what that business needs. You Low-IQs pretend that we are talking about a system that you can easily discredit. So, similar to pro-athlete recruits, your nephew's wife would have signed a contract to work in advertising for a certain number of years