2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

You sure about this? I think you could not be more incorrect.

Over sixty schools meet 100% of demonstrated financial need. These tend to be elite schools for the smart-but-poor kids. Less talented kids who still need financial aid have various state programs to choose from.

UConn (as an example) costs $20,000 for in-state residents, including room and board. A student should be able to make at least $15,000 working part-time during the school year and full time during the summer, even at a fast food job. That leaves $5,000 per year to be covered by student loans. That student could graduate with $20,000 in student loans (a modest amount) and not a penny from mom and dad. If he majors in something like Accounting or Engineering, he graduates making $60,000 and pays the loan in less than a year.

 

[GoIrish41]

So let's say that is the case. Let's give Bernie every benefit of the doubt that we can... which, to me, is garbage because if the above is the point he was trying to make then there were 1000 different/better/more clear ways to say it. But let's assume he/the campaign worker that wrote the tweet aren't idiots, and that his point was something more philosophical.

Let's look at how he wants to pay for college: Bernie Sanders issues bill to make 4-year colleges tuition-free | USA TODAY College

The tax burden would all fall exclusively on Wall Street per his plan. Who here is more knowledgeable about the effects of such a tax?

Not sure I know what you mean by "who here?"

Do you mean Bernie or Wall Street or "here" on IE?

 

[wizards8507]

So let's say that is the case. Let's give Bernie every benefit of the doubt that we can... which, to me, is garbage because if the above is the point he was trying to make then there were 1000 different/better/more clear ways to say it. But let's assume he/the campaign worker that wrote the tweet aren't idiots, and that his point was something more philosophical.

Let's look at how he wants to pay for college: Bernie Sanders issues bill to make 4-year colleges tuition-free | USA TODAY College

To qualify for the federal government grants, the states would also have to meet a variety of requirements. Some of these requirements include ensuring universities maintain or increase expenditures on students each year, maintaining or increasing operation expenditures each year and guaranteeing that after 5 years on this program, at least 75% of instruction is taught by tenured or tenure-track professors.

Translation: This new entitlement program is specifically designed so that it will get geometrically more expensive year-after-year. Cost-savings initiatives are specifically prohibited.

The tax burden would all fall exclusively on Wall Street per his plan. Who here is more knowledgeable about the effects of such a tax?

Pensioners and retirees would take it up the ass. Investment would flood out of the country. Entrepreneurial risk-taking would plummet. Innovation would stagnate.

 

[IrishLax]

Not sure I know what you mean by "who here?"

Do you mean Bernie or Wall Street or "here" on IE?

Here as in IE. I don't know the first thing about what kind of impact those taxes would have on Wall Street or the country as a whole.

 

[EddytoNow]

Translation: This new entitlement program is specifically designed so that it will get geometrically more expensive year-after-year. Cost-savings initiatives are specifically prohibited.


Pensioners and retirees would take it up the ass. Investment would flood out of the country. Entrepreneurial risk-taking would plummet. Innovation would stagnate.

Chicken Little: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

[wizards8507]

Chicken Little: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The sky is falling.

 

[GoIrish41]

Over sixty schools meet 100% of demonstrated financial need. These tend to be elite schools for the smart-but-poor kids. Less talented kids who still need financial aid have various state programs to choose from.

UConn (as an example) costs $20,000 for in-state residents, including room and board. A student should be able to make at least $15,000 working part-time during the school year and full time during the summer, even at a fast food job. That leaves $5,000 per year to be covered by student loans. That student could graduate with $20,000 in student loans (a modest amount) and not a penny from mom and dad. If he majors in something like Accounting or Engineering, he graduates making $60,000 and pays the loan in less than a year.

Your list of schools represents 24 states with almost no representation from the Deep South or the SW U.S. Seventeen of the schools are from two states (California and Mass.). Indeed, get away from the NE states and California, and your list shrinks to 21 schools. What if it was a poor kid from, say, North Dakota or Louisiana or Florida or any of the other 26 states that are not represented on your list? Should he or she just have the chauffeur drive them back and forth to school? For many, many families, the financial burden of transportation to and from school would be a nonstarter. Going to school out of state? No way. States that have no schools that meet 100% of demonstrated financial need have more than their share of poor kids who are being shut out of higher education -- and, the point that I was making in my post was not even about the current state, but the direction that we're headed as a country.

Unless you are talking about poor people from Seattle who make $15 an hour, how do you figure a kid is going to make $15K working part-time for 9 months and full time for 3 at a fast food joint? If you made that Seattle rate working those hours, maybe. But, in most of the country the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, and you would barely gross $15K if you worked full time year round.

Also, what percentage of the students in those schools on your list are poor kids who receive such benefits? You are not even scratching the surface of those who are being excluded from higher education in this country. I give credit to those universities on the list, but lets be realistic -- their programs represent barely a drop in the bucket to meet the need that Bernie is trying to address.

 

[GoIrish41]

Here as in IE. I don't know the first thing about what kind of impact those taxes would have on Wall Street or the country as a whole.

Beats me. I'd assume some of the accountants will chime in eventually.

 

[wizards8507]

Your list of schools represents 24 states with almost no representation from the Deep South or the SW U.S. Seventeen of the schools are from two states (California and Mass.). Indeed, get away from the NE states and California, and your list shrinks to 21 schools. What if it was a poor kid from, say, North Dakota or Louisiana or Florida or any of the other 26 states that are not represented on your list? Should he or she just have the chauffeur drive them back and forth to school? For many, many families, the financial burden of transportation to and from school would be a nonstarter. Going to school out of state? No way. States that have no schools that meet 100% of demonstrated financial need have more than their share of poor kids who are being shut out of higher education -- and, the point that I was making in my post was not even about the current state, but the direction that we're headed as a country.

You completely ignored my separate example of in-state tuition at public universities. My UConn example had nothing to do with those schools the meet 100% of demonstrated need. UConn was $20K per year, including room and board, and the math worked. That's on the high end. You mention North Dakatoa? $16,000, including room and board. Louisiana? $22,000 (less if you have more roommates). Florida State? $17,000. Many of these figures are total cost of attendance, which include transportation. If you want to get conservative, throw in $200 to each of these for a few tanks of gas.

You need to get away from the "...for many families..." bullshit. We're not talking about asking a poor family to find $20,000 extra. We're asking for an adult (i.e. the student) to scrape up $20,000 total.

Unless you are talking about poor people from Seattle who make $15 an hour, how do you figure a kid is going to make $15K working part-time for 9 months and full time for 3 at a fast food joint? If you made that Seattle rate working those hours, maybe. But, in most of the country the minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, and you would barely gross $15K if you worked full time year round.

We've been over this. If you're so inept at life that you ACTUALLY make minimum wage, you aren't going to college anyways. Maybe "fast food" was a poor example, but food service (i.e. waiter/waitressing) is an EASY path to $10 an hour with tips. That would mean you need 1,500 hours in a year. Assuming full time in the summer and over breaks, we're talking about 20-25 hours during the school year. That's EASY.

 

[Buster Bluth]

BS. My Notre Dame roommate came from a Big Oil family in Texas. I came from a manufacturing family in Rhode Island. He and I got the exact same education. The difference? His family wrote a $50,000 check every year. Of the five-or-so schools I got into, none of them offered financial aid packages that my family would have been unable to afford. Some of these were merit-based programs and others were need-based. There are absolutely no competent college seniors who aren't going to college because they can't afford it. Not every family can afford every school, but every family can afford some school through financial aid. Nobody actually pays "list price" for tuition unless they can afford it.

You put way too much faith in Bernie Sanders' supporters. Most of them absolutely are economically illiterate. So are Trump supporters, Clinton supporters, Cruz supporters, etc.

Half of Americans couldn't come up with $400 without having to borrow some of it. I don't think you're aware of the dire financial situation America's poor are in.

Over sixty schools meet 100% of demonstrated financial need. These tend to be elite schools for the smart-but-poor kids. Less talented kids who still need financial aid have various state programs to choose from.

UConn (as an example) costs $20,000 for in-state residents, including room and board. A student should be able to make at least $15,000 working part-time during the school year and full time during the summer, even at a fast food job. That leaves $5,000 per year to be covered by student loans. That student could graduate with $20,000 in student loans (a modest amount) and not a penny from mom and dad. If he majors in something like Accounting or Engineering, he graduates making $60,000 and pays the loan in less than a year.

You should know it's the poor who go to college and drop out with <$10,000 in debt that are the most crushed by college debt. We like to stereotype the philsophy student with >$80,000 in debt but they aren't the ones who have debt that crushes them, according to study after study. It's the inability of the poorer Americans to handle debt that is a fraction of what you'd consider to be a "modest amount." Consider that for a moment.

 

[wizards8507]

Half of Americans couldn't come up with $400 without having to borrow some of it. I don't think you're aware of the dire financial situation America's poor are in.

You're talking about mom and dad's financial situation. Junior's education isn't the burden of mom and dad when he's grown. If Junior can't scrape up $15K to go to his state school, then he's too inept to succeed in college anyways.

You should know it's the poor who go to college and drop out with <$10,000 in debt that are the most crushed by college debt.

Good for them? Sanders' plan would make the dropout rate even worse, since there would no longer be any financial disincentive to dropping out.

We like to stereotype the philsophy student with >$80,000 in debt but they aren't the ones who have debt that crushes them, according to study after study. It's the inability of the poorer Americans to handle debt that is a fraction of what you'd consider to be a "modest amount." Consider that for a moment.

Then finish school! Whether it's the philosophy major with $80K in debt or the dropout with $10K in debt, their inability to pay is a direct consequence of the student's actions.

 

[GoIrish41]

You need to get away from the "...for many families..." bullshit. We're not talking about asking a poor family to find $20,000 extra. We're asking for an adult (i.e. the student) to scrape up $20,000 total.

In fairness, you were the one who brought up family finances when you said ...

Not every family can afford every school, but every family can afford some school through financial aid.

As to the rest ...

We've been over this. If you're so inept at life that you ACTUALLY make minimum wage, you aren't going to college anyways. Maybe "fast food" was a poor example, but food service (i.e. waiter/waitressing) is an EASY path to $10 an hour with tips. That would mean you need 1,500 hours in a year. Assuming full time in the summer and over breaks, we're talking about 20-25 hours during the school year. That's EASY.

So you say. I don't agree with you anymore today than I did when you said it last time or the time before that. The value of incomes has stagnated over the last several decades, not grown as you describe. The minimum wage has been $7.25 for the past five years, and while some people do earn raises, they don't keep up with inflation. They certainly don't keep pace with the cost of getting a college education. Perhaps you should consider that things are changing for the worse for poor people and not just a lecture on maturity and responsibility away from a path to success. If there was a way to get out of their dire situations, don't you think more people would take it? C'mon Wiz, think about it. Millions of people living lives as an underclass in our society, and all it takes is a little elbow grease and focus and they could escape it, yet nearly all of them choose Door #1. That makes no sense. What does make sense is that it is not nearly as easy as you say.

I'm glad you have never had to learn the hard way what true poverty is like, I really am. But your view of the world seems so narrowly focused on your own personal experience that you miss the fact that people are in desperate circumstances and have little hope of ever breaking out. This is among the problems that Bernie is trying to address. It may not be important to you, but to the countless, faceless, poor whose lives might be improved, it could be more important than any other issue facing the nation -- even the ones who you believe are "too inept to succeed in college anyway."

 

[GoIrish41]

Then say, "I'd like to socialize post-secondary education, and here's how I propose to pay for it."



I don't disagree that this is a problem. But the Progressive knee-jerk reaction to propose a Federal policy to "fix" it is a problem. Because there's a solid case to be made that Federal subsidies are the primary driver behind tuition inflation, and not evil banks pricing hard-working poor people off the golden road to upward mobility.



Is an economy in which a 4-year degree is required for upward mobility sustainable in the long term? I'd argue that points to problems inherent to the liberal political economy, and not to a lack of regulation regarding student loans.



You're making an awful lot of charitable assumptions about that tweet. Do note that I find Bernie vastly preferable to Hillary, and hope he is the Democratic nominee. But on a fair reading, I don't see how the tweet in question can be interpreted as anything other than: (1) laughable financial ignorance; or (2) shameless pandering.

I have heard Bernie speak on the topic many times, and it seems to me that the issue is one of making the government work for the individuals in this country, and not just the wealthy. Perhaps his tweet was inelegant, and it was almost certainly pandering (he is a politician running for president, after all), but putting the tweet aside, the overarching theme of his campaign is leveling the playing field. Making college more affordable is just a piece of it. In my view, that should be a universal theme in all the ongoing campaigns, but it is not. But it is easier to bash the proposals of others than actually putting forward a plan. The fact is that it is not an issue that is on the radar of most politicians -- particularly on the right. Short of a better idea to accomplish this important goal, I'm willing to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt that he is not financially ignorant.

 

[phgreek]

You're talking about mom and dad's financial situation. Junior's education isn't the burden of mom and dad when he's grown. If Junior can't scrape up $15K to go to his state school, then he's too inept to succeed in college anyways.


Good for them? Sanders' plan would make the dropout rate even worse, since there would no longer be any financial disincentive to dropping out.


Then finish school! Whether it's the philosophy major with $80K in debt or the dropout with $10K in debt, their inability to pay is a direct consequence of the student's actions.

I'm with Wiz on this one...

I got some need based money, worked part time (off campus because it paid better), played ball, and graduated in 4 years...left with 20K in student loans, paid it off over 5 years.

My brother went the ROTC route, got a degree, and made a career out of the Air Force, so he had no debt.

Anyone here think our initial career paths were remotely related to what we wanted to do? They were a result of the necessity of making financial decisions and being disciplined while still in school...ie what do I gotta do to live and pay any debt...

You can find a way into school and make it work, and you must choose studies that allow you to survive first, and those choices take discipline...you can't be an engineer and live life like an art major...and it sucks when you are 19.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I have heard Bernie speak on the topic many times, and it seems to me that the issue is one of making the government work for the individuals in this country, and not just the wealthy.

I'm also concerned about regulatory capture by wealthy interest groups; but, like most Progressives, he's apparently blind to the fact that a bigger and more centralized government can't help but exacerbate that problem. But setting that campaign finance reform debate aside, let's grant--for the sake of argument-- that Bernie could "make the government work for individuals" instead of just the wealthy. If doing so would require policies that further estrange Americans from each other and undermine local communities, then it's simply not worth the cost of entry.

Perhaps his tweet was inelegant, and it was almost certainly pandering (he is a politician running for president, after all), but putting the tweet aside, the overarching theme of his campaign is leveling the playing field.

"Equal opportunity" is impossible, but it gets mentioned all the time by candidates from both parties because it's an empty buzzword that helps justify the status quo. A more just social arrangement would require a far better understanding of the main drivers of poverty--both spiritual and material--than we currently have today.

Making college more affordable is just a piece of it.

Since ancient Greece, college has been the exclusive province of elites. Average people simply shouldn't need post-secondary education to provide for their families and contribute meaningfully to their communities. But addressing that would raise all sorts of uncomfortable questions about some foundational assumptions of our political order.

Regardless, of all the things we could be subsidizing with our limited resources, why choose to spend on college? If the goal is to ensure most Americans have access to dignified work, there are far better ways to go about doing that.

In my view, that should be a universal theme in all the ongoing campaigns, but it is not.

Socialized post-secondary education should be a universal theme in all ongoing campaigns? Surely you can understand why lots of Americans disagree, whether for reasons of practicality, priority and/or principal.

But it is easier to bash the proposals of others than actually putting forward a plan.

The single most effective thing we could do to make college more affordable is to stop subsidizing student loans. That's both politically feasible and likely to work, unlike Bernie's proposal.

The fact is that it is not an issue that is on the radar of most politicians -- particularly on the right. Short of a better idea to accomplish this important goal, I'm willing to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt that he is not financially ignorant.

As I mentioned before, I like Bernie and hope he wins the nomination. But he has repeatedly beclowned himself on this issue.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Since ancient Greece, college has been the exclusive province of elites.

This is a weird position to take considering any sort of education was a privilege. Widespread secondary education didn't come around until the 19th century, no? The ancient Greeks or anyone between them and modern times didn't have anything resembling a middle class, so why is that even brought up?

Average people simply shouldn't need post-secondary education to provide for their families and contribute meaningfully to their communities. Of all the things we could be subsidizing with our limited resources, why choose to spend on college?

Well that's one angle. Not necessarily wrong in my view as I've said the middle class was in better shape when someone could graduate from high school and secure a job in a factory that paid for his house, car, wife, kids, etc. But, times are changing and do we see countries like Germany struggle to educate their citizens like we do? Do we see them struggle with funding said education? Those are legitimate questions from me, I don't know the answer. College reform doesn't make my top ten so I don't read much about it.

I will point out though that capitalism's benefit is that it crushes the cost of producing a product, and an educated human being can be considered a product. It's done it too but because of the system we haven't realized those benefits. There is simply no reason that, other than the good universities (ie top 200 or so plus liberal arts), taking a 101 sorta course should cost more than $1. If they really wanted to crush costs the government would wave their finger and something like this would would be acceptable at a certain level of university. I mean there's no reason a student can't watch this video series from a Yale professor and then pass a rigorous test and not earn the credit. It's just so god damn efficient.

Overnight you'd cut the cost of college by like 20% as all of your general electives cost like $20 total. There's just no reason someone who goes to an Eastern Michigan sorta place, or any community college, shouldn't be able to realize the cost benefit of taking their rudimentary classes online. I took one class via Ohio State on Skype at Stanford, there were dozens of universities tied in too. That type of technology should be crushing the cost of an education by providing students with cheap 101 classes.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is a weird position to take considering any sort of education was a privilege. Widespread secondary education didn't come around until the 19th century, no? The ancient Greeks or anyone between them and modern times didn't have anything resembling a middle class, so why is that even brought up?

"Education" has existed as long as civilization has. Parents, particularly mothers, have historically been responsible for providing most it in the home. It wasn't until the 19th century that it was systematized and brought outside of the home in Germany. Regardless, we're talking about college, not primary education; and that has (until very recently) been limited to the elite.

Well that's one angle. Not necessarily wrong in my view as I've said the middle class was in better shape when someone could graduate from high school and secure a job in a factory that paid for his house, car, wife, kids, etc. But, times are changing and do we see countries like Germany struggle to educate their citizens like we do? Do we see them struggle with funding said education? Those are legitimate questions from me, I don't know the answer. College reform doesn't make my top ten so I don't read much about it.

Good questions all, and we may be able to emulate some aspects of the German model successfully (for instance, kids are sorted between Trade School and University tracks pretty early on). But, as with most other northern European countries, they enjoy some advantages that we can't hope to copy-- like cultural homogeneity and monetary policies that grant them tremendous advantages in international trade.

I will point out though that capitalism's benefit is that it crushes the cost of producing a product, and an educated human being can be considered a product. It's done it too but because of the system we haven't realized those benefits. There is simply no reason that, other than the good universities (ie top 200 or so plus liberal arts), taking a 101 sorta course should cost more than $1. If they really wanted to crush costs the government would wave their finger and something like this would would be acceptable at a certain level of university. I mean there's no reason a student can't watch this video series from a Yale professor and then pass a rigorous test and not earn the credit. It's just so god damn efficient.

That depends on what you think "education" is. If it's merely a consumer good to be passively received through a MOOC, then you're correct. But if it's a guided dialectical engaging with universal truths through the great works of the Western canon, then that's not really the sort of thing that can survive such commoditization. But this tension-- between utilitarian and classical models of education-- is yet another battle that has been raging in the West for the last couple hundred years or so. They both have their place, but the latter is uniquely valuable, and is unfortunately in danger of disappearing since we've lost the will to defend Western Civilization and the ability to articulate what a liberal arts education is even for.

 

[kmoose]

I'm glad you have never had to learn the hard way what true poverty is like, I really am. But your view of the world seems so narrowly focused on your own personal experience that you miss the fact that people are in desperate circumstances and have little hope of ever breaking out. This is among the problems that Bernie is trying to address. It may not be important to you, but to the countless, faceless, poor whose lives might be improved, it could be more important than any other issue facing the nation -- even the ones who you believe are "too inept to succeed in college anyway."

The problem is that Bernie seems to believe that a college education is the ONLY way out............ and that's simply not true. No one goes to a 4 year college to become a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter, or some kind of technician. In fact, the following people have/had no college degree:

1. Anne Beiler, multimillionaire co-founder of Auntie Anne’s Pretzels. Dropped out of high school.

2. Dave Thomas, billionaire founder of Wendy’s. Dropped out of high school at 15.

3. David Geffen, billionaire founder of Geffen Records and co-founder of DreamWorks. Dropped out of college after completing one year.

4. H. Wayne Huizenga, founder of WMX garbage company, helped build Blockbuster video chain. Joined the Army out of high school, and later went to college only to drop out during his first year.

5. Larry Ellison, billionaire co-founder of Oracle software company. Dropped out of two different colleges.

Obviously not everyone is going to be as successful as this group. The list is only offered as a possibility, not an expected result.

But the fact remains, that a college degree is NOT required, for a person to become financially independent.

The BEST thing for the nation would be to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Then you employ people with little education to operate the assembly lines, do the Quality Assurance, package and ship the product. You hire the people with some advanced education to install, maintain, and repair the various automated equipment that aids your manufacturing process(es), and also to do the accounting, the data entry, and maybe even to take care of the human resource programs. You hire the college graduates to do the strategic management, the engineering, the marketing, and the upper management functions. In other words, you provide jobs for ALL segments of America!! A free education doesn't produce a single job, other than the professors and administrative staff.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm also concerned about regulatory capture by wealthy interest groups; but, like most Progressives, he's apparently blind to the fact that a bigger and more centralized government can't help but exacerbate that problem. But setting that campaign finance reform debate aside, let's grant--for the sake of argument-- that Bernie could "make the government work for individuals" instead of just the wealthy. If doing so would require policies that further estrange Americans from each other and undermine local communities, then it's simply not worth the cost of entry.



"Equal opportunity" is impossible, but it gets mentioned all the time by candidates from both parties because it's an empty buzzword that helps justify the status quo. A more just social arrangement would require a far better understanding of the main drivers of poverty--both spiritual and material--than we currently have today.



Since ancient Greece, college has been the exclusive province of elites. Average people simply shouldn't need post-secondary education to provide for their families and contribute meaningfully to their communities. But addressing that would raise all sorts of uncomfortable questions about some foundational assumptions of our political order.

Regardless, of all the things we could be subsidizing with our limited resources, why choose to spend on college? If the goal is to ensure most Americans have access to dignified work, there are far better ways to go about doing that.



Socialized post-secondary education should be a universal theme in all ongoing campaigns? Surely you can understand why lots of Americans disagree, whether for reasons of practicality, priority and/or principal.



The single most effective thing we could do to make college more affordable is to stop subsidizing student loans. That's both politically feasible and likely to work, unlike Bernie's proposal.



As I mentioned before, I like Bernie and hope he wins the nomination. But he has repeatedly beclowned himself on this issue.

I am not arguing that post secondary education should be socialized. I am arguing that those who want to pursue it should have an easy path to do so -- particularly and especially those who demonstrate aptitude to be successful. Too often those decisions are not made on merit, but family financial considerations. As a society, we are cheating ourselves of the next great doctor, scientist, mathematician, engineer, author, etc. because we are not providing an achievable path to everyone who wishes to take it. I'm not for free college for all -- I'm for access to affordable college to all. Many young people would reject the opportunity in favor of working, just as many do now. As I said, his education plan is only a piece of a more overarching plan. He also wants to put people to work in good paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and leaning forward on renewable energy to provide power in the future without antagonizing people in other regions of the world and reversing the troubling effects of climate change. Many of the infrastructure and new energy jobs may not require workers with college educations. The grand plan is to put people to work doing things that are productive for the society -- some of those jobs will require more education and some will not.

 

[GoIrish41]

The problem is that Bernie seems to believe that a college education is the ONLY way out............ and that's simply not true. No one goes to a 4 year college to become a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter, or some kind of technician. In fact, the following people have/had no college degree:

1. Anne Beiler, multimillionaire co-founder of Auntie Anne’s Pretzels. Dropped out of high school.

2. Dave Thomas, billionaire founder of Wendy’s. Dropped out of high school at 15.

3. David Geffen, billionaire founder of Geffen Records and co-founder of DreamWorks. Dropped out of college after completing one year.

4. H. Wayne Huizenga, founder of WMX garbage company, helped build Blockbuster video chain. Joined the Army out of high school, and later went to college only to drop out during his first year.

5. Larry Ellison, billionaire co-founder of Oracle software company. Dropped out of two different colleges.

Obviously not everyone is going to be as successful as this group. The list is only offered as a possibility, not an expected result.

But the fact remains, that a college degree is NOT required, for a person to become financially independent.

The BEST thing for the nation would be to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Then you employ people with little education to operate the assembly lines, do the Quality Assurance, package and ship the product. You hire the people with some advanced education to install, maintain, and repair the various automated equipment that aids your manufacturing process(es), and also to do the accounting, the data entry, and maybe even to take care of the human resource programs. You hire the college graduates to do the strategic management, the engineering, the marketing, and the upper management functions. In other words, you provide jobs for ALL segments of America!! A free education doesn't produce a single job, other than the professors and administrative staff.

Access, not compulsory college education is what I've heard Bernie talk about. My post immediately before this one clarifies my position a little, but suffice it to say that I don't disagree with any of this. But the fact that those anecdotes are so noteworthy that we can look them up and we have so much evidence that a much much larger group of Americans have much bleaker results in our current social construct should give us all pause. Something needs to be done to create opportunities for everyone -- not just a few.

 

[kmoose]

But the fact that those anecdotes are so noteworthy that we can look them up and we have so much evidence that a much much larger group of Americans have much bleaker results in our current social construct should give us all pause. Something needs to be done to create opportunities for everyone -- not just a few.

Opportunities for what, though? To have an advanced education? Great, we can create the most educated unemployed society on the planet..........

 

[GoIrish41]

Opportunities for what, though? To have an advanced education? Great, we can create the most educated unemployed society on the planet..........

Opportunities to earn a comfortable living. As I said, that doesn't mean everyone goes to school. Does anyone think that a Roosevelt-style jobs program to rebuild our infrastructure would not grow the economy? Manufacturing jobs lost are not coming back ... Not at the same level of wages as when they left, at any rate. New industries must be built -- in renewable energy. For example, invest like JFK did in the space race to perfect high functioning, large capacity batteries for the home that could store sufficient energy to make solar power a no brainer. If successful, installation businesses would grow to meet demand of this new "free" energy source. Those technicians would have money in their pockets to go to restaurants and local stores, creating more jobs. So would all the folks who no longer have a $250 energy bill each month. This can be done if we have the will to do it.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Access, not compulsory college education is what I've heard Bernie talk about. My post immediately before this one clarifies my position a little, but suffice it to say that I don't disagree with any of this. But the fact that those anecdotes are so noteworthy that we can look them up and we have so much evidence that a much much larger group of Americans have much bleaker results in our current social construct should give us all pause. Something needs to be done to create opportunities for everyone -- not just a few.

You're obsessed with this word, both in education and health care. You talk as though people die on our streets without Obamacare. You talk as though people whose parents don't earn $150k a year can't go to college. Both are bullshit. The access is there. It's not "free" access for most, but it's there.

 

[GoIrish41]

You're obsessed with this word, both in education and health care. You talk as though people die on our streets without Obamacare. You talk as though people whose parents don't earn $150k a year can't go to college. Both are bullshit. The access is there. It's not "free" access for most, but it's there.

Perhaps, but I have always found inclusion superior to exclusion. By comparison, you have what I would consider an unhealthy, and dare I say mean spirited and cynical, aversion to the concept of increasing citizens' access to healthcare and education. Perhaps that speaks volumes about why we agree on almost nothing politically. Of course, it also might have something to do with what you seem to consider acceptable in our society. So long as people aren't 'dying on our streets' (which they do, by the way) and parents can send their kids to school if they are willing to work multiple jobs and make the entire family suffer through living in substandard neighborhoods while juggling utility bills for half a decade, you are of the mind that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Something can hardly be called access if, as a practical matter, it is inaccessible to so many people in this country.

 

[wizards8507]

Opportunities to earn a comfortable living.

It is supremely easy to earn a comfortable living in the United States in 2015. Like, remarkably easy. Like, you have to actively try to manage to screw it up. If you work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children, your chance of living in poverty is 2%. Those are remarkably good odds and a remarkably low standard. None of those things require a government program.

You've bought into the great lie of modern American liberalism; that life is hard. Life is so hard, in fact, that Average Joe is completely screwed without the help of the government. Every liberal talking point revolves around that belief. The deck is stacked against you. Level the playing field. Pay their fair share. Women are being held back. Blacks are being held back. Immigrants are being held back. Gays are being held back. The Democrat party needs a permanent underclass to form their base. To keep people in their place, they instill in them the belief that the only way they'll overcome the otherwise insurmountable problems in their life is through a government program. Most Democrat politicians perpetuate this lie, knowing it's a lie, to keep the "true believers" in line. The phenomenon of Bernie Sanders is that he actually is one of those true believers. He's not a puppet master spreading the lie for political expedience. He actually believes it. The problem with that lie is that life isn't actually that hard.

 

[GoIrish41]

It is supremely easy to earn a comfortable living in the United States in 2015. Like, remarkably easy. Like, you have to actively try to manage to screw it up. If you work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children, your chance of living in poverty is 2%. Those are remarkably good odds and a remarkably low standard. None of those things require a government program.

You've bought into the great lie of modern American liberalism; that life is hard. Life is so hard, in fact, that Average Joe is completely screwed without the help of the government. Every liberal talking point revolves around that belief. The deck is stacked against you. Level the playing field. Pay their fair share. Women are being held back. Blacks are being held back. Immigrants are being held back. Gays are being held back. The Democrat party needs a permanent underclass to form their base. To keep people in their place, they instill in them the belief that the only way they'll overcome the otherwise insurmountable problems in their life is through a government program. Most Democrat politicians perpetuate this lie, knowing it's a lie, to keep the "true believers" in line. The phenomenon of Bernie Sanders is that he actually is one of those true believers. He's not a puppet master spreading the lie for political expedience. He actually believes it. The problem with that lie is that life isn't actually that hard.

Let's address some of the items included in your list that makes up the "Great lie of modern American liberalism":


Government intervention helps a lot of people.

Without Government Interventions, Child Poverty Rate Would Nearly Double - The Annie E. Casey Foundation



14.3 percent of U.S. households (1 in 7) are food insecure.

Hunger in America: 2015 United States Hunger and Poverty Facts by World Hunger Education Service



47 million people in this country fall below the poverty threshold of about $24,000 a year.

Census Says Poverty Rate Is Still the Same - The Atlantic



Every state in the union has a higher rate of poverty for women than men. Every single state!

Adult Poverty Rate by Gender | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation



Since you brought race into this: in every state in the country with available statistics, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that poverty rates of blacks and Hispanics are substantially higher than that of whites. Coincidence?

Poverty Rate by Race/Ethnicity | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation



In 2014, 38% of black children and 32% of Hispanic children live in poverty, as compared to 22% across the entire country.

Children in poverty by race and ethnicity | KIDS COUNT Data Center


You can choose to live with your head in the sand if that makes you feel better, but there are a whole lot of people stuggling in this country. Ignoring the problems of the country does nothing to help. Advocating to not helping them does nothing but make things worse.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

It is supremely easy to earn a comfortable living in the United States in 2015. Like, remarkably easy. Like, you have to actively try to manage to screw it up. If you work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children, your chance of living in poverty is 2%. Those are remarkably good odds and a remarkably low standard. None of those things require a government program.

You've bought into the great lie of modern American liberalism; that life is hard. Life is so hard, in fact, that Average Joe is completely screwed without the help of the government. Every liberal talking point revolves around that belief. The deck is stacked against you. Level the playing field. Pay their fair share. Women are being held back. Blacks are being held back. Immigrants are being held back. Gays are being held back. The Democrat party needs a permanent underclass to form their base. To keep people in their place, they instill in them the belief that the only way they'll overcome the otherwise insurmountable problems in their life is through a government program. Most Democrat politicians perpetuate this lie, knowing it's a lie, to keep the "true believers" in line. The phenomenon of Bernie Sanders is that he actually is one of those true believers. He's not a puppet master spreading the lie for political expedience. He actually believes it. The problem with that lie is that life isn't actually that hard.

You're a smart guy, but this post reeks of ignorance and naivety. Unbelievable.

 

[pkt77242]

It is supremely easy to earn a comfortable living in the United States in 2015. Like, remarkably easy. Like, you have to actively try to manage to screw it up. If you work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children, your chance of living in poverty is 2%. Those are remarkably good odds and a remarkably low standard. None of those things require a government program.

You've bought into the great lie of modern American liberalism; that life is hard. Life is so hard, in fact, that Average Joe is completely screwed without the help of the government. Every liberal talking point revolves around that belief. The deck is stacked against you. Level the playing field. Pay their fair share. Women are being held back. Blacks are being held back. Immigrants are being held back. Gays are being held back. The Democrat party needs a permanent underclass to form their base. To keep people in their place, they instill in them the belief that the only way they'll overcome the otherwise insurmountable problems in their life is through a government program. Most Democrat politicians perpetuate this lie, knowing it's a lie, to keep the "true believers" in line. The phenomenon of Bernie Sanders is that he actually is one of those true believers. He's not a puppet master spreading the lie for political expedience. He actually believes it. The problem with that lie is that life isn't actually that hard.

Are you talking about the government poverty level? If so that statistic is misleading. Making 12K a year is above the poverty level but isn't anything close to comfortable.

 

[irishff1014]

In fairness, you were the one who brought up family finances when you said ...



As to the rest ...



So you say. I don't agree with you anymore today than I did when you said it last time or the time before that. The value of incomes has stagnated over the last several decades, not grown as you describe. The minimum wage has been $7.25 for the past five years, and while some people do earn raises, they don't keep up with inflation. They certainly don't keep pace with the cost of getting a college education. Perhaps you should consider that things are changing for the worse for poor people and not just a lecture on maturity and responsibility away from a path to success. If there was a way to get out of their dire situations, don't you think more people would take it? C'mon Wiz, think about it. Millions of people living lives as an underclass in our society, and all it takes is a little elbow grease and focus and they could escape it, yet nearly all of them choose Door #1. That makes no sense. What does make sense is that it is not nearly as easy as you say.

I'm glad you have never had to learn the hard way what true poverty is like, I really am. But your view of the world seems so narrowly focused on your own personal experience that you miss the fact that people are in desperate circumstances and have little hope of ever breaking out. This is among the problems that Bernie is trying to address. It may not be important to you, but to the countless, faceless, poor whose lives might be improved, it could be more important than any other issue facing the nation -- even the ones who you believe are "too inept to succeed in college anyway."

While i will agree with you that the price needs to come up. 15 dollars an hour for fast food workers is absurd. If that's the case it will be easier to cut the staff by about 40 percent put touch screen computers in to order from. Now yow don't need 4/5 people taking orders. Unless you inspire to be a manager the fast food industry is designed to be a starter job not a career path. I know that you didn't specificity say fast food, but i was using it as my example.

 

[wizards8507]

You can choose to live with your head in the sand if that makes you feel better, but there are a whole lot of people stuggling in this country. Ignoring the problems of the country does nothing to help. Advocating to not helping them does nothing but make things worse.

How'd they get there? Take the whole population of "people struggling," subtract drug users, drinkers, criminals, teenage parents, unmarried parents, high school dropouts, those with legitimate disabilities, those with imagined disabilities, art history majors (and the like), career students, and those who just simply live beyond their means. The list of people left from plain bad luck is remarkably small.

While i will agree with you that the price needs to come up. 15 dollars an hour for fast food workers is absurd. If that's the case it will be easier to cut the staff by about 40 percent put touch screen computers in to order from. Now yow don't need 4/5 people taking orders. Unless you inspire to be a manager the fast food industry is designed to be a starter job not a career path. I know that you didn't specificity say fast food, but i was using it as my example.

Nobody actually earns minimum wage. 1% of workers earn the minimum wage. 3% of workers are age 16 to 19. Meaning even teenagers are earning above the minimum wage.