Page 1 of 1
Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:34 am
by Baldy
Far Right-Wing Conk think tank Brookings Institute has studied Burney's Free College Tuition for All plan and discovered that it will benefit the rich much more than it will benefit the "poor".
I'm shocked.
Who would benefit most from free college?
Free college is unlikely to see the light of day in today’s divided political environment, but is frequently in the news as a point of contention between the two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for president. Bernie Sanders supports eliminating tuition and fees at public colleges, whereas Hillary Clinton favors increases in student aid targeted at low- and middle-income students.
This report provides new evidence on which groups of students are likely to benefit the most from a policy that eliminates tuition and fees at public colleges and universities. Using nationally representative data on in-state students at public institutions, I find that students from higher income families would receive a disproportionate share of the benefits of free college, largely because they tend to attend more expensive institutions.
Under the Sanders free college proposal, families from the top half of the income distribution would receive 24 percent more in dollar value from eliminating tuition than students from the lower half of the income distribution. The non-tuition costs of attending college, including living expenses, are larger than the costs of tuition and fees for most students. Free college, which does not address these expenses, leaves families from the bottom half of the income distribution with nearly $18 billion in annual out-of-pocket college costs that would not be covered by existing federal, state, and institutional grant programs. Devoting new spending to eliminating tuition for all students involves a tradeoff with investing the same funds in targeted grant aid that would cover more of the total costs of attendance for students from less well-off families.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:55 am
by SDHornet
Meh. After the ass whooping bernie took in NY, it just showed that minorities have no interest in voting for him. I've been saying "he's done" for a while but NY was the final nail in the coffin. He probably had a better chance if he wasn't such a pussie for more than just the last month of campaigning.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:58 am
by kalm
Like several of us have been saying all along. We need to split those who are academically inclined from those who will more likely end up working a trade at an earlier age. Trade schools would more likely be shorter and require less tuition assistance but designed to get a kid an internship during high school so that they are employable when they're kicked out of the house at 18. By nature, the academically inclined would cost more in tuition assistance.
In other words, the world needs ditch diggers too.
And according to Bernie, if corporate tax rates were the same as under Reagan, we could afford free tuition today. These are decisions we make.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:20 am
by Pwns
kalm wrote:Like several of us have been saying all along. We need to split those who are academically inclined from those who will more likely end up working a trade at an earlier age. Trade schools would more likely be shorter and require less tuition assistance but designed to get a kid an internship during high school so that they are employable when they're kicked out of the house at 18. By nature, the academically inclined would cost more in tuition assistance.
In other words, the world needs ditch diggers too.
And according to Bernie, if corporate tax rates were the same as under Reagan, we could afford free tuition today. These are decisions we make.
I agree 100% with the general principle of sending more students on vocational tracks.
The problem with what you're proposing is that we will never agree on what a fair assessment of what track a student should be on as long as there are achievement gaps between racial and socioeconomic groups. We can't even agree on what a fair and useful SAT is.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:30 am
by kalm
Pwns wrote:kalm wrote:Like several of us have been saying all along. We need to split those who are academically inclined from those who will more likely end up working a trade at an earlier age. Trade schools would more likely be shorter and require less tuition assistance but designed to get a kid an internship during high school so that they are employable when they're kicked out of the house at 18. By nature, the academically inclined would cost more in tuition assistance.
In other words, the world needs ditch diggers too.
And according to Bernie, if corporate tax rates were the same as under Reagan, we could afford free tuition today. These are decisions we make.
I agree 100% with the general principle of sending more students on vocational tracks.
The problem with what you're proposing is that we will never agree on what a fair assessment of what track a student should be on as long as there are achievement gaps between racial and socioeconomic groups. We can't even agree on what a fair and useful SAT is.
Other countries have done it. It's possible with the right leadership.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:37 am
by Baldy
kalm wrote:We need to split those who are academically inclined from those who will more likely end up working a trade at an earlier age.
Who will pick these winners and losers?
The government?
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:03 am
by kalm
Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:We need to split those who are academically inclined from those who will more likely end up working a trade at an earlier age.
Who will pick these winners and losers?
The government?
It ain't rocket science. Set a level of achievement by a certain age (GPA, testing, etc). Everyone knows it and has a chance to meet it. If they don't, it's off to the skills center for you. (Not that that's a bad thing).
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:14 am
by YoUDeeMan
kalm wrote:Pwns wrote:
I agree 100% with the general principle of sending more students on vocational tracks.
The problem with what you're proposing is that we will never agree on what a fair assessment of what track a student should be on as long as there are achievement gaps between racial and socioeconomic groups. We can't even agree on what a fair and useful SAT is.
Other countries have done it. It's possible with the right leadership.
No, it isn't.
Right now schools can't even put a kid on a different track without being sued.
Seriously, there is a kid who beat her mother, and has additional criminal offenses, and who has been suspended multiple times for violence in school. A district school wants to take the kid out of the high school, but the mother is suing the school saying that her child was not given enough support.
At this point, every normal person loses. The school is going to pay thousands of dollars of lawyer fees to fight to get the kid out of the school, or will pay thousands of dollars to settle and the kid will get to bring her violence back into the school while the other kids who are trying to learn will suffer.
That is the way America is...and there is no real way to stop it.
Libs want to pandering to the lowest common denominator. Lower expectations and hold no one accountable. Do you think people will accept being held accountable in the future? No way.
Wow...Clinton's ads in Philly market are racist and divisive. jellybean needs to put up a chart that tells how many Democratic Presidential candidates ran ads that divided Whites against Blacks. Police against Blacks. Everyone against Blacks.
Holy crap...Trayvon Martin? Dontre Hamilton?
[youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYl69PAeN-4[/youtube]
Wonder if the Hispanics will stick by Clinton...Zimmerman was one of them.
So who is Clinton standing with?
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:28 am
by SDHornet
Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:We need to split those who are academically inclined from those who will more likely end up working a trade at an earlier age.
Who will pick these winners and losers?
The government?
Exactly. While the idea of trade/vocational schools is a common sense approach many would agree with, it wouldn't be long until it is shut down or convoluted with "quotas" when everyone see that is will be mostly blacks and browns getting shuttled into those programs. Bottom line is it will never happen.
Also the academia lobby would fight this tooth and nail. They are making a killing from pimping the "everybody should go to college" mantra.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 10:44 am
by GannonFan
SDHornet wrote:Baldy wrote:
Who will pick these winners and losers?
The government?
Exactly. While the idea of trade/vocational schools is a common sense approach many would agree with, it wouldn't be long until it is shut down or convoluted with "quotas" when everyone see that is will be mostly blacks and browns getting shuttled into those programs. Bottom line is it will never happen.
Also the academia lobby would fight this tooth and nail. They are making a killing from pimping the "everybody should go to college" mantra.
Agreed. Why would Big Education want to change the status quo? We keep giving kids more and more money or loans to attend these schools, and the schools get more expensive by about the same amount. Big Education is winning.
Re: RE: Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:14 pm
by DSUrocks07
kalm wrote:Baldy wrote:
Who will pick these winners and losers?
The government?
It ain't rocket science. Set a level of achievement by a certain age (GPA, testing, etc). Everyone knows it and has a chance to meet it. If they don't, it's off to the skills center for you. (Not that that's a bad thing).
But make sure you set lower standards for minorities, you know, because they aint smart enough to make it on their own, they need a helping hand from the government (affirmative action) to be able to accomplish anything in life.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:48 pm
by kalm
Holy mountains of myopia, Batman!
What a bunch of Eeyores!
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:04 pm
by Chizzang
kalm wrote:Holy mountains of myopia, Batman!
What a bunch of Eeyores!
Nothing can be done...
only the Lawyers win
We are doomed to behave as we always have
flush your optimism down the toilet with your wallet
Things will never change
only stupid people want to change the world
The Republican Party 1981 - 2016
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:20 pm
by kalm
Chizzang wrote:kalm wrote:Holy mountains of myopia, Batman!
What a bunch of Eeyores!
Nothing can be done...
only the Lawyers win
We are doomed to behave as we always have
flush your optimism down the toilet with your wallet
Things will never change
only stupid people want to change the world
The Republican Party 1981 - 2016
That isn't fair. DSU, Ganny, and SDHornet are all independents.
Just because things work elsewhere doesn't mean they'll work here...
Also because...commies.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:32 pm
by JohnStOnge
I actually kind of agree with what I think is Bernie's idea more than I do Hillary's. If you're going to offer something for free offer it to everybody. Don't penalize people because they are successful.
However, I don't really agree with either plan.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 8:33 pm
by SDHornet
kalm wrote:Chizzang wrote:
Nothing can be done...
only the Lawyers win
We are doomed to behave as we always have
flush your optimism down the toilet with your wallet
Things will never change
only stupid people want to change the world
The Republican Party 1981 - 2016
That isn't fair. DSU, Ganny, and SDHornet are all independents.
Just because things work elsewhere doesn't mean they'll work here...
Also because...commies.
Just telling it how it is. Not sure why you infer I wouldn't want it to be that way.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:57 am
by Baldy
kalm wrote:Baldy wrote:
Who will pick these winners and losers?
The government?
Yes!
Just as I expected.
Re: Burney and his Welfare for the Rich
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:23 am
by kalm
Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:
Yes!
Just as I expected.
Touche!