Bernie sanders wants to tax stock trades to pay for free college

[Lakryte]

Not at all. The reason education costs went up is because the government gave access to debt, and didn't subsidize the schools directly. Provide significant Federal funding tied to cost of attendance expectations and you're set.

The reason education costs went up is because the government gave access to funding in the form of loans. If the government gives access to funding without people having to pay it back, the effect on the price of education will be exactly the same. If the federal government provides funding to cover what is currently the cost of education, schools will raise prices regardless of if the cost is covered by student loans or student welfare. It makes no difference.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The reason education costs went up is because the government gave access to funding in the form of loans. If the government gives access to funding without people having to pay it back, the effect on the price of education will be exactly the same. If the federal government provides funding to cover what is currently the cost of education, schools will raise prices regardless of if the cost is covered by student loans or student welfare. It makes no difference.

Not if the government ties funding to cost of attendance expectations.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not if the government ties funding to cost of attendance expectations.

I don't think that is a realistic threat. and his point was correct. When I was in college, there was much anger over the costs of expensive Ivy schools-schools that had endowments that were greater than the GDP of many nations. and an economics professor who was respected across the board noted that the real cost of schools was about the same over the last 15 years (and we are talking from 65-80) even though the inflation of tuition exceeded many other services or items. government grants etc were a real reason for jacked up tuition (though it doesn't explain why in terms of the actual costs a school sustains).

now a school that cost me 10K a year in 81 with another 3-4 for room and board now is over 58K a year=maybe more-at least 4X more expensive in 34 years. few things have increased that much.

 

[chromium]

WOW that is really something, but:::: This is typical across this country. Teachers unions have destroyed our education system.

The Permanent Employment Statute in California has all but assured teachers that, once they reach tenure, they can stop trying. Just look at these shameful figures:

In the last ten years, only 91 teachers out of about 300,000 (.003 percent) who have attained permanence lost their jobs in California. Of those, only 19 (.0007 percent) have been dismissed for poor performance. Is it possible that Golden State teachers are that good? Such an astronomical permanence rate doesn’t square with the performance of California’s fourth- and eighth-graders, whose scores on National Assessment of Educational Progress tests persistently rank near the bottom.

Number of Tenured Teachers in CA Fired for Poor Performance in Last Decade: 19 - Cortney O'Brien

And this

Beatriz Vergara, 15, said she had one teacher at her school in Pacoima, Calif., who fell asleep during class. Another of her teachers told Latino students that they'd end up cleaning houses for a living. Brandon Debose Jr. said his 10th-grade geometry teacher in Oakland spent 10 minutes of class taking roll, didn't explain the work and expected students to learn math on their own.

Rather than just complain, the students did something about it. Backed by an advocacy group and top lawyers, they sued the California school system and testified about this ineptitude. And last week, against all odds, they won.

OPPOSING VIEW: A bizarre development

A Los Angeles judge struck down state laws that make tenure far too easy to get, seniority a singular shield against layoffs and incompetent teachers almost impossible to fire.

The system — which leaves grossly ineffective teachers in classrooms, often in low-income and minority communities — robs children of the opportunity for an equal education, Judge Rolf Treu ruled.

Firing tenured teachers: Our view

Once again this is common knowledge all across this country.. And yet liberals pander to the teachers unions for their vote. Pathetic

And this

Are teachers' unions the biggest cause of poor teaching performance in California?
The CEA is the biggest contributor to the Democratic party in California. California schools rank 46 out of the 50 states. Unions push for class-size reductions (read: "more teachers as members of our union") and prevent firing bad teachers, and defend tenure after less than 3 years on the job. Teachers in CA average $64K/year for 9-months' work.

Are teachers' unions the biggest cause of poor teaching performance in California? - Quora

I think you vastly overestimate the number of competent teachers, or any other profession, who are willing to settle down in certain areas

I had teachers who just had us watch movies and copy by hand the textbooks all day. In spanish 2, we just watched films EVERY day (they were in spanish at least) and we didn't even have a final. We just all got As "cause you're good people." But i figured no one more knowledgeable than their 10th grade students would actually relocate to teach us, even if the current teachers were fired.

Falling asleep on the job is common in any profession, as is not giving a ****. $64k in CA is right around median income for bachelor's degree. You act like it's a damn fortune.

California Postsecondary Education Commission -- 50 State Comparison - Median Income

As for the low rate of firing, the whole idea of tenure is they have proven themselves. Ten minutes taking roll would be about 20 seconds each if 30 students. That's slow but perhaps the teacher is old or the kids are being disorderly little ****s. The fact is you aren't there and so you dunno. If you think 10 minutes is wasteful, how bout that 1hr bus ride, 6 mins between class to walk 30 feet, pep rallies etc etc. When things are systemically bad, usually everyone is to blame. K-12 sucks because of parents, students, teachers, bus drivers, janitors, principals, governors, everyone

Those teenagers who sued and many on this thread need to stop whining or go get a teaching degree and turn things around themselves. All of high school, and much more, can be self taught at that age, if motivated to do so. That's why home schooling is superior. Most of their classmates probably look down on those "victims" for wanting more work/lecture, and i do for their supposed helplessness

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

The difference between this and most other campaign stunts is Bernie actually means what he says. He's probably the most consistent politician we have. Yeah, it's unlikely to pass, but Bernie wants people to know what he stands for and I'm going to do my part to help him.

No chance of passing. Mainly a symbolic gestrue. I still support it 100%

College tuition used to be something one paid for with the earnings from a low wage summer job.

Since the government has been throwing money at it, it is now only possible with a crippling load of debt that practically invalidates the benefits of having a degree.

Beware easy money.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Would this include CDs, houses, etc?

 

[Lakryte]

Not if the government ties funding to cost of attendance expectations.

TurtleDude addressed the point just as well as I could have.

To add, "cost of attendance expectations" is a pretty loaded and meaningless term. Furthermore, PLUS loans already cover whatever the full cost of attendance is expected to be. The only difference is that it is a loan instead of free money. But that is irrelevant to cost, because the schools get the same money regardless of whether it is a loan or not.

Are you saying the government would limit funding to what they expect the cost of attendance to be? In other words, if they expect tuition to be $40k, they will only pay $40k even if it is $50k? Because the exact same policy could be implemented with loans. Direct funding is totally irrelevant to implementation of such a policy.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

TurtleDude addressed the point just as well as I could have.

To add, "cost of attendance expectations" is a pretty loaded and meaningless term. Furthermore, PLUS loans already cover whatever the full cost of attendance is expected to be. The only difference is that it is a loan instead of free money. But that is irrelevant to cost, because the schools get the same money regardless of whether it is a loan or not.

Are you saying the government would limit funding to what they expect the cost of attendance to be? In other words, if they expect tuition to be $40k, they will only pay $40k even if it is $50k? Because the exact same policy could be implemented with loans. Direct funding is totally irrelevant to implementation of such a policy.

Debt is not a subsidy because the debtor has to pay it back. In order for the savings to be passed on, the government would need to provide a direct subsidy. The school gets government funds, the individual gets to go to school with direct subsidization or completely free, and the government sets cost of attendance expectations that are tied to this funding that brings down the price of a degree. Schools rearrange their cost structure to fall in line with this new price model. The government ends federal student loan programs, so that access to the debt markets is restricted, and unsubsidized schools are forced to bring their costs down to better align with customer pricing expectations.

 

[Deuce]

Then you include Democrat wanting to pay taxes for wars.

We should pay taxes for wars. Move every penny of defense spending to a specific, extra tax fund. Perhaps in the form of a national sales tax. A whole population should feel SOME cost of war instead of just the people fighting it.

 

[haymarket]

i know
you are better than those who have less than you
you are entitled
proof that someone can attain an expensive education and still learn nothing

A degree is one thing - and education is sometimes quite another thing. But your observation is spot on.

 

[Born Free]

We should pay taxes for wars. Move every penny of defense spending to a specific, extra tax fund. Perhaps in the form of a national sales tax. A whole population should feel SOME cost of war instead of just the people fighting it.

Nothing wrong with that idea. Good one.

 

[Montecresto]

We should pay taxes for wars. Move every penny of defense spending to a specific, extra tax fund. Perhaps in the form of a national sales tax. A whole population should feel SOME cost of war instead of just the people fighting it.

That would be better then the current system, but better then that would be the Pentagon passing the hat................now then, you support the military adventure we're about to engage in, open your wallet.