You’re arguing that the students are not paying, so college costs less. Urbanredneck is arguing that the government is now paying the costs, so colleges will charge them more.
“Cost” and “price” are not the same thing. Every single other reader of this thread gets it, so no need to explain it to one who chooses not to.
On the “unfair” line of thinking. If I had any outstanding student loans, your taxes would go to me. That doesn’t seem like a good place to send them. Likewise, if I sent a kid to, say, UVA next year, we’re currently unlikely to receive any financial aid. But this plan would have you covering my family’s expenses. It just doesn’t seem like good prioritization of funds.
Whatever. You are the one who packed your post full of examples of boomers.
Like if there should be a magical reason to ignore boomer’s opinions on this. Not logical at all. And again, since the survey I pointed out uses the internet, there are usually less boomers in there telling us that… yes, this is an idea that we should consider.
So says the one that insisted that we are talking the same when we talk about purchasing power and how much people are getting paid nowadays.
Nope, I get it too, it is really silly to press on as if I’m only talking to reduce costs for students, and that that should be dismissed just because you consider the government costs as if it was the only item being considered. And as usual in this thread: it is clear that you do ignore that I do think that means testing (that in part are already in the plan by giving a limit of how much should be forgiven) should be added to the plan. Meaning that well to do students will not have access to this.
Now what you are dealing with is actually with the issue of making a plan like this sustainable, as noted there are several developed nations that manage to do this and they are not ending going up in flames by offering free college education or at a reduced price.
Forgot to add:
It may happen that private colleges charge more, in countries that offer free or reduced price college education, but there are ways for governments to intervene to prevent that from spiraling out of control.
Now, private institutions will indeed try to charge more, but they will IMHO encounter what does happens when there are good public options (like with health care in civilized nations), trying to charge more does become unsustainable for private institutions when there is a good public option available.
But in the end, someone has to pay the bill. and colleges will be free to charge whatever they want.
Again, thats what books and movies and trips to museums and such are for.
But does one need to pay $1,000 for a 3 credit class in art history?
Please read post #307
Gigo! You’re usually a smart guy. Review this subthread and you’ll see you’re thrashing wildly, defending an error and completely unresponsive to me.
It started when you posted (faulty) anecdotes and then lectured me with “The plural of anecdote is not data.” 
Which is about what private colleges will charge, which nobody was talking about. Without pricing pressure, and without rules to prevent it, Warren’s policy will result in public schools charging more.
No, not to students, in case you try throwing that gem at us again.
Not seeing it there, again, what you press is an motional reason in an attempt to make those anecdotes to be dismissed. And the survey is there for a reason, to point at evidence that is not just boomers who see this as proper.
Real median personal income is up. Real, as in purchasing power. You want the link again? People today have more inflation-adjusted income than they used to.
Did you not just write “Since the subject is what students pay”? We can only go by what you write, not what you think you mean.
Tuition, the subject that, according to you, we were discussing, is not means-tested under the current plan. So this isn’t terribly germane now.
Nobody “needs” to pay for an organic chemistry lecture either. They have that book in the library.
We’ve hired plenty of art history majors, but strangely never one with museum trips on their resume. No, not to do anything very art- or history-related. But that’s because most of us realize that college isn’t a jobs-training program. One generally doesn’t major in X just to become an X-ian or -ist.
Again:
And again, the point was about purchasing power, your point is indeed about personal income. Not the same, and your point does not counter the other, but it is not my problem if you want to insist that you think it was about the same thing.
Yes, I do not say that what you say is not valid, only that as it was the case with the purchasing power, you want to act as if we do not talk about alternatives that therefore they do not exist.
And third strike too, the effort here is to claim that I was not talking about that, when I did. Means testing is something that will have to be added too so as to make it viable, as I mentioned many, many times already, I’m in favor of Warren’s plan with a tweak like means testing. (And it is really funny that on this you mentioned that we should go what what we write before, since I did write about means testing before, your rule here looks arbitrary).
Please expand on this. What kind of jobs do you find art majors good at?
For many, college is nothing more than a signal that one is more literate and motivated than an average high schooler. If college becomes “free” and universal not only will it cost society more it will signal less. Which would put enormous pressure on many to get post grad or professional education as a discriminating signal for economic value.
What a disaster for nations that then get to choose the best from a larger pool of talent.
Ah, everyone will be above average then. Lol.
You do realize that fixing the elementary and high schools would have a more significant impact than making useless majors ‘free’?