Sanders is promising that tuition will be free. If the federal government doesn’t control the universities, that means they’ll have to pay whatever the university charges, which means rates will be going up much faster than they are now. Obviously that won’t work so what will happen is nothing changes or they put some kind of cap/limit on what the federal government will cover. Universities will raise rates and things will be just as they are now with students racking up just as much debt. The only difference is that the federal government will be paying a lot more for it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Yeah in 08, people suspected Hillary supporters would stay home too or not vote for Obama. Obama also won states in the general which Hillary had won in the primaries. A lot might depend on Bernie. He will make a speech at the convention I am certain and he has been very clear on our need to keep Republicans such as Trump/Cruz out of the WH. He has been very vocal about Trump. Btw I’m one of his supporters and I’m already on board with Clinton. And it’s only March. Nov is still nearly 8 mos away.POLITICO:
I hope Sanders stays in, I suspect a lot of his supporters will stay home rather than vote for Clinton.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Nothing is free. We all will be paying for free college were it to be enacted. I sent mine to college, I don’t want to pay for someone else’s kids.Sanders is promising that tuition will be free. If the federal government doesn’t control the universities, that means they’ll have to pay whatever the university charges, which means rates will be going up much faster than they are now. Obviously that won’t work so what will happen is nothing changes or they put some kind of cap/limit on what the federal government will cover. Universities will raise rates and things will be just as they are now with students racking up just as much debt. The only difference is that the federal government will be paying a lot more for it.
I know nothing is free, I just want an explanation on how he will control costs.Nothing is free. We all will be paying for free college were it to be enacted. I sent mine to college, I don’t want to pay for someone else’s kids.
Take the University of Washington. Annual tuition, not counting room and board, food, books/suplies, etc, just tuition is about $12,000 a year. Under Sanders’ tax plan, the funds are generated and the student can attend school without paying that tuition. (We all know it won’t work that smooth, but for the sake of the argument, it does). Next year, the school raises their rates to $15,000 for tuition. The federal government works its magic and pays for it. The next year, they raise rates to $20,000 a year. The government then has to either keep to its promise and pay, knowing that because of their own action, tuition is $8,000 more, or they have to say, sorry, we’re not paying more than $15,000 and the student will have to make up the difference.
In the end, we’d be worse off than now because the student will ultimately end up in just as much debt, plus we’d all be paying a lot more out of taxes and increased costs of goods/services. To stop this from happening, it seems the only option would be for the fed to take complete control over all public colleges and universities.
D
didymus
Guest
Sanders just won the Democrats Abroad primaries.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Well that means he cut into her lead by 5 delegates. He received 9. She 4.Sanders just won the Democrats Abroad primaries.
T
Theo520
Guest
I expect many will just write him in, to emphasize their displeasure.POLITICO:
I hope Sanders stays in, I suspect a lot of his supporters will stay home rather than vote for Clinton.
SALON: Democrats, you can’t vote for Hillary: The case for writing in Bernie Sanders If Hillary Clinton is the nominee
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
No, it’s the government, believe me. I work in academia.The federal government doesn’t have much control over other public schooling systems besides setting educational standards so you are probably jumping the gun a bit. Accreditation requirements and a lack of funding flexibility would be the primary changes most likely.
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Why would the federal government fund it any differently than our current public school system? The universities won’t get to set the fees just like high schools don’t set a tuition. There are certainly problems with public funding of higher education but this isn’t one of them.I know nothing is free, I just want an explanation on how he will control costs.
Take the University of Washington. Annual tuition, not counting room and board, food, books/suplies, etc, just tuition is about $12,000 a year. Under Sanders’ tax plan, the funds are generated and the student can attend school without paying that tuition. (We all know it won’t work that smooth, but for the sake of the argument, it does). Next year, the school raises their rates to $15,000 for tuition. The federal government works its magic and pays for it. The next year, they raise rates to $20,000 a year. The government then has to either keep to its promise and pay, knowing that because of their own action, tuition is $8,000 more, or they have to say, sorry, we’re not paying more than $15,000 and the student will have to make up the difference.
In the end, we’d be worse off than now because the student will ultimately end up in just as much debt, plus we’d all be paying a lot more out of taxes and increased costs of goods/services. To stop this from happening, it seems the only option would be for the fed to take complete control over all public colleges and universities.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
The federal government only funds K-12 schools to about 8% of their total - the rest is local. Sanders is proposing a 100% payment for tuition at public universities. His site touts the $243 per year average tuition in 1965 while decrying the current cost. What he doesn’t mention is that it was 1966 that the federal government started the student loan program, and the universities saw a massive new pipeline of free money coming from the government - all they had to do was raise their tuition to get more money. Every single time prices have jumped, it can be tied to a new source of money. As soon as it was easier to get a mortgage, housing prices shot up. Credit cards become commonplace, and the price of common goods skyrockets. Auto loans become the norm, and cars now cost more than the average house used to.Why would the federal government fund it any differently than our current public school system? The universities won’t get to set the fees just like high schools don’t set a tuition. There are certainly problems with public funding of higher education but this isn’t one of them.
With the government promising 100% tuition coverage for every student, what we would see is the lowering of admissions standards and a massive hike in tuition prices.
S
sallybutler
Guest
Gee whiz, did all that GI educational money cause universities to raise the rates also?The federal government only funds K-12 schools to about 8% of their total - the rest is local. Sanders is proposing a 100% payment for tuition at public universities. His site touts the $243 per year average tuition in 1965 while decrying the current cost. What he doesn’t mention is that it was 1966 that the federal government started the student loan program, and the universities saw a massive new pipeline of free money coming from the government - all they had to do was raise their tuition to get more money. Every single time prices have jumped, it can be tied to a new source of money. As soon as it was easier to get a mortgage, housing prices shot up. Credit cards become commonplace, and the price of common goods skyrockets. Auto loans become the norm, and cars now cost more than the average house used to.
With the government promising 100% tuition coverage for every student, what we would see is the lowering of admissions standards and a massive hike in tuition prices.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
The military accounts for less than 1% of the US population. 70% of graduates had student loans. Which do you think had more impact?Gee whiz, did all that GI educational money cause universities to raise the rates also?
S
sallybutler
Guest
In the 50’s? I thought it was one of the major causes of the middle class?The military accounts for less than 1% of the US population. 70% of graduates had student loans. Which do you think had more impact?
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
3000 showed up to see Bernie last night in Flagstaff, Az.
It was an outside venue and chilly temperatures and wind.
It was an outside venue and chilly temperatures and wind.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
At the peak of the GI bill in 1947, veterans only accounted for 49% of all college admissions. That was when the percentage of military participation has reached it’s all-time peak of 12% of the population.In the 50’s? I thought it was one of the major causes of the middle class?
The GI bill was a one-time bucket of money that almost immediately became an almost-negligible trickle, from the universities’ point of view. Student loans have been a steady flow of cash since 1966, and now Mr. Sanders is suggesting we turn it into a firehose. There is exactly zero possibility of the universities not taking full advantage of such a situation. When one tells a business that cost is no object, it’s guaranteed that costs will increase by orders of magnitude.
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
Federal or local is irrelevant, the point is that the schools don’t just arbitrarily get to decide how much funding they are going to make when they are publicly supported. If higher education was made into a publicly funded system it would be the government setting the budget (with the advice of the institutions of course) just like with every other publicly funded system. DOTs don’t choose their funding, the military doesn’t choose it’s funding, the FBI doesn’t choose it’s funding… that is just how it works.The federal government only funds K-12 schools to about 8% of their total - the rest is local. Sanders is proposing a 100% payment for tuition at public universities. His site touts the $243 per year average tuition in 1965 while decrying the current cost. What he doesn’t mention is that it was 1966 that the federal government started the student loan program, and the universities saw a massive new pipeline of free money coming from the government - all they had to do was raise their tuition to get more money. Every single time prices have jumped, it can be tied to a new source of money. As soon as it was easier to get a mortgage, housing prices shot up. Credit cards become commonplace, and the price of common goods skyrockets. Auto loans become the norm, and cars now cost more than the average house used to.
With the government promising 100% tuition coverage for every student, what we would see is the lowering of admissions standards and a massive hike in tuition prices.
The biggest difference is that unlike elementary and high schools, each public college is unique to itself. They have their own president and system of directors to run/manage the university. Do you see them willingly giving up that control and the paychecks that go with it? Without taking control of the universities, the federal government does not have the authority to tell a university what to charge for tuition.Federal or local is irrelevant, the point is that the schools don’t just arbitrarily get to decide how much funding they are going to make when they are publicly supported. If higher education was made into a publicly funded system it would be the government setting the budget (with the advice of the institutions of course) just like with every other publicly funded system. DOTs don’t choose their funding, the military doesn’t choose it’s funding, the FBI doesn’t choose it’s funding… that is just how it works.
Z
zz912
Guest
Nope. It’s impact was never huge.In the 50’s? I thought it was one of the major causes of the middle class?
The 50’s were a boon because we had just bombed every single 1st world country back to the Stone Age. The US was the only industrialized country left. So when manufacturing, building, and production were needed in the 50’s, there was only one country who could fulfill that need.
It also helped that we had a pretty good President then who didn’t meddle very much and left the free market mostly alone. That’s why the 50’s were so incredible from an economic standpoint. It was in marked contrast to the constant meddling and manipulation that we experienced in the 30’s and 40’s which caused the Great Depression to last so long.
P
PatrickSebast
Guest
The government has the authority to tell them what they will pay per student to anyone who wants to remain a public institution. And that is exactly what they would do. If the school didn’t like it they could look into going private. This is a pretty standard form of budgeting.The biggest difference is that unlike elementary and high schools, each public college is unique to itself. They have their own president and system of directors to run/manage the university. Do you see them willingly giving up that control and the paychecks that go with it? Without taking control of the universities, the federal government does not have the authority to tell a university what to charge for tuition.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
So what happens when the schools simply raise tuition by the amount that the government is willing to pay? Do we let the government increase the limit?The government has the authority to tell them what they will pay per student to anyone who wants to remain a public institution. And that is exactly what they would do. If the school didn’t like it they could look into going private. This is a pretty standard form of budgeting.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.