Can you explain what, in your mind, is the difference between a private for-profit college, and a public not-for-profit university?
Do you think they are exactly the same? Do you think the government should treat them exactly the same?
Do you think for profit corporations and non-profit organizations are treated exactly the same by the government? Do you think they should be?
Public colleges are already accredited and with less reports of shady deals as part of oversight already in place, so yeah.
And that was a red herring, because that was not the plan that De Vos came up with.
This post is absurd nonsense. As Velocity already noted:
It’s perfectly possible to believe that education, in general, is a good thing, and not think that the current iteration of America’s higher education system (which has resulted in mountains of student debt) has not, on net, had “a positive impact on the way things were going in the country”.
Yes, but there will be many voters still pissed off about yesterday not being fixed. You can say that’s a bad attitude, but human nature is human nature. Which is why this plan may end up winning Warren fewer votes than she hopes for, or may even cost her votes.
No it doesn’t.
To adopt your form of argumentation, Democrats support the left-wing indoctrination of students, harassment and intimidation of all points of view beside the most extreme, and systematically saddling of students and families with unmanageable levels of debt to fund their already bloated senses of entitlement. Any one who says otherwise hates freedom. Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
That isn’t the question that was asked in the poll. What you are doing is called spinning.
Well I think its incumbent upon all of us to try to be better than that, so that we can try to make society better for those that come after us.
Is that realistic? Sadly, no. But we all must decide where we stand and do what we can. The alternative is just accepting that we are too selfish as a species to improve ourselves if we personally can’t get all of the benefits ourselves right now.
It’s not a red herring, I’m asking your opinion on a matter. If public colleges are doing a bang-up job and their students are graduating with good employment prospects and earning enough to pay back their student loans, what would they have to fear from such a rule being applied to them? Why would you oppose a level-playing-field rule like that? Is it because you know that public colleges aren’t exactly doing a bang-up job these days?
What was the poll question? The bit in quotes in my post came directly from your source, from the bit you cited in post #58, in quotes.
I would ask that you not try to put words in my mouth or tell me what I would say in your imagination.
You are also doing a lot of … generous interpretation… of that poll result. It was a simple question, but you and HD are trying to spin the hell out of it to make it seem virtuous. It’s painfully obvious and honestly a little awkward to watch the attempts.
Simply this:
Do Colleges and Universities have a positive or negative affect on the way things are going in the country.
58% of Republican respondents said that colleges and universities have a negative affect on the way things are going in this country.
Anything else you’ve said outside of those words of the actual question are spin. I’m taking the simplest interpretation which is the exact words that were asked and the response.
I’m sorry if this is a hard truth for you, but not everything we learn about ourselves or our political side is pleasant. If we are honest with ourselves, that is.
It is because it is our tax money that is involved, also there are many other oversight tools used.
And there you go again with straw men, read it again and see that I did say “yeah” to have rules like that.
The red herring is still here by noticing that De Vos was not planning on applying the rules that way to public schools.
I don’t think that objection is so much to education itself per se (i.e., learning how to do calculus or organic chemistry,) but rather, that many Republicans consider the majority of U.S. colleges and universities today to be liberally biased.
I don’t know of a single Republican who claims that Patrick Henry College, Bob Jones, or Liberty University etc. ought not to exist. Those are politically right-leaning colleges.
It didn’t differentiate. It asked about all colleges and universities.
It was a simple poll question, with simple words, and a clear answer.
Well, that’s the thing. It certainly is a drag, the thing is, would it be better to put that drag on the Federal government by increasing our debt by over a trillion dollars, or by leaving it where it is with the people who borrowed the money, presumably because they felt it would help them? I don’t really know, but nothing in your cite here clears that up one way or the other. I’m not sure what other countries have to do with it, unless the assertion is that some/most/all other non-US countries forgive or forgave their student loan debt to the tune of the equivalent respective to their GDP of $1.4 trillion dollars.
Here are my questions on this plan. Is this a one time good deal or will this go hand in hand with some sort of proposed new system for student loans? IOW, are we going to fix the problem as part of this, or just forgive debt right now with the possibility we’ll be doing this again down the road? Or is this part of some system to make all higher education ‘free’ from here on out, and if so, how will that work? What is the balance between the US directly taking on over a trillion more in debt verse the purported economic drag of the people (44 million Americans IIRC) who are currently obliged to pay them off? I’m all for a GDP boost, but how realistic are those numbers, and what, exactly are we talking about? GDP is not a universal measure for a growing economy…a lot of things can go into GDP. It also might not be taking into account the drag on our economy going forward of adding a trillion plus dollars to the debt.
I don’t have an issue, in theory, with forgiving the student debt…from a personal perspective, two of my kids have student loans that they are paying off, so my family would benefit directly. Many of my extended family and friends would also benefit…many wouldn’t. I know the loan system itself is deeply flawed, and that seems a better target to go after first, to fix this and then, once it’s fixed and working, to perhaps consider going back and bailing out those affected by the old (current) system. To me, THAT seems a better way to go, but this isn’t a subject I’m really that familiar with except to say I’ve seen some videos on student debt and some on the issues the system has (off the top of my head, the one I most clearly recall is Adam Ruins Student Loans :p).
Uh no. It’s definitely not a strawman. I’d rather everyone get a check. Not just the fiscally foolish.
The problem is just printing money to solve a problem in one sector is mainly inflationary. Do politicians and the public ever learn from history and prior asset bubbles?
“I had to suffer. Therefore, I want the next generation to suffer as much as I did, and will be angry if they do not have to.” What’s the logic for that? I’m one of the graduates of whom you speak, and I do not feel that way at all. “Misery loves company” is a terrible philosophy to run a society on.
I’m a firm believer that the debtor is a slave to the lender, and that debt is something that should be avoided, not encouraged by the government. If we want to give our young people a leg up in life, the way to do that is NOT by enslaving them to banks with debts that cannot (in most cases) be discharged in bankruptcy, but by just flat out paying the bill for those students who have the intelligence to make it.
I don’t understand. You start out saying that “debt is something that should be avoided, not encouraged by the government” and then you conclude by saying that we should be “just flat out paying the bill”. “We” don’t have money for that. “We” would have to incur (more) debt to pay their bills. If “debt is something that should be avoided” then “we” should not be paying anyone else’s bills, at least until we get our own financial house in order.
The reason this is bad idea is not just that it is a waste of money and a subsidy to the upper middle class, but that it fundamentally misunderstands what college is.
For about 5-10% of students college is about education and the acquiring of knowledge that will help them be more productive. For the rest of the students it is about certification of the fact that you are smart and conscientiousness and thus will be a better worker. The more people get a certification then the weaker the signal the certification sends. Before WW2 only a quarter of the population graduated high school so that was a good signal that you were smart and motivated. Now 80-90% of the population graduates high school so all it signals is that you are not the lowest in intelligence and motivation. Rates of college graduation are about what rates of high school graduation were and rates of advanced degrees are about what college graduation were.
From an individual perspective it is worth it to be certified and graduate college because it sets you apart from other job seekers. From a societal standpoint all the money spent to certify who the top job seekers are is a waste. Senator Warren’s loan scheme would make everything worse, it would increase the cost of college while making the signal sent by college attendance. It would encourage people to spend less time in productive work and more time trying to get credentialed.
The result is not increased prosperity but credential inflation, more young people wasted a decade of their lives to get credentials.
It is because I did not say or proposed that, you started your reply by claiming that “you could just print money”…