Obama Proposes 2 Years of Free Community College

[AmericanFirst]

If Obutthurt didn't lie all the time we would never hear from him.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Let's make everything free.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

By the time Obama leaves office America will have over $23 trillion in debt.
Our debt to GDP ratio will be worse than Greece.
But by all means don't let this bother you.

Don't let those silly interest payments on the debt bother you either.

 

[hjmick]

Ain't nothing free...

 

[Flopper]

I agree. However, the supporters claim that those receiving it will have to "earn" it. I've asked, without getting an answer, when are those doing the "work" to "earn" it going to be at my house to cut my grass. It's only logical to expect the ones doing the work to do it for those doing the paying.

And we're suppose to believe in that?

Let's put it this way. If someone have a 2.5 in high school, he/she can get a lot of community college cost paid for. Even if he/she didn't get a penny, most community colleges are like $1,000-1,500 a semester.
So who is going to benefit from this? People who failed /or did shitty in high school and couldn't even make it to community college. Question is, how those are gonna do in community college? They're still gonna do shitty and still fail, but now they're wasting more of our money. How about they earn their place in community college first, by proving themselves in high school? Oh, those people are already covered... then who else can benefit from this?

Keep in mind community college is not just for those seeking bachelor's and advanced degree. Community colleges offer many 2 yr degrees and certificates in healthcare, building trades, business, and technology. These programs are designed to teach specific jobs skills. The courses are not generally transferable to a 4 year school but offer specific job training. Most kids coming out of high school with only average grades can do well in these programs if they apply themselves.

These programs are good for kids without the academic background for college but want training to help them get started in a field.

Then let them invest in their own future.

There is a well known and reputable technical college where I live. It does much the same while also offering college transfer course for what one would call general education classes. Most degrees are somewhere around 70 semester hours. For example, the Fire Science degree is 71. It involves 5 semesters ranging from 12 - 15 hours based on a recommended schedule. Lottery money is used to offset the costs. That's an average of 14 hours/semester x 5 semesters. The costs, having looked on the school's website, for a 14 hour semester is $1229. $1229 x 5 = $6,145.

As far as employment is concerned, the job placement rate is 83% according to the school's website. Not a bad personal investment with those results.

A $6100 investment in education is better than paying out ten times that amount in food stamps, child support, welfare, unemployment, drug rehab, and the criminal justice system which where a large percent of these kids are heading without some job skills.

Then they shouldn't have a problem investing that little in themselves. They don't have a problem demanding someone else do it.

The tax payer is going to pay either way, job training now, or more low income workers to support later as well dealing the cost of the social problems that grow out of poverty.

 

[Ame®icano]

A $6100 investment in education is better than paying out ten times that amount in food stamps, child support, welfare, unemployment, drug rehab, and the criminal justice system which where a large percent of these kids are heading without some job skills.

At the end, we'll end up paying for all, college and food stamps and child support, and welfare, and drug rehab...

 

[Conservative65]

And we're suppose to believe in that?

Let's put it this way. If someone have a 2.5 in high school, he/she can get a lot of community college cost paid for. Even if he/she didn't get a penny, most community colleges are like $1,000-1,500 a semester.
So who is going to benefit from this? People who failed /or did shitty in high school and couldn't even make it to community college. Question is, how those are gonna do in community college? They're still gonna do shitty and still fail, but now they're wasting more of our money. How about they earn their place in community college first, by proving themselves in high school? Oh, those people are already covered... then who else can benefit from this?

Keep in mind community college is not just for those seeking bachelor's and advanced degree. Community colleges offer many 2 yr degrees and certificates in healthcare, building trades, business, and technology. These programs are designed to teach specific jobs skills. The courses are not generally transferable to a 4 year school but offer specific job training. Most kids coming out of high school with only average grades can do well in these programs if they apply themselves.

These programs are good for kids without the academic background for college but want training to help them get started in a field.

Then let them invest in their own future.

There is a well known and reputable technical college where I live. It does much the same while also offering college transfer course for what one would call general education classes. Most degrees are somewhere around 70 semester hours. For example, the Fire Science degree is 71. It involves 5 semesters ranging from 12 - 15 hours based on a recommended schedule. Lottery money is used to offset the costs. That's an average of 14 hours/semester x 5 semesters. The costs, having looked on the school's website, for a 14 hour semester is $1229. $1229 x 5 = $6,145.

As far as employment is concerned, the job placement rate is 83% according to the school's website. Not a bad personal investment with those results.

A $6100 investment in education is better than paying out ten times that amount in food stamps, child support, welfare, unemployment, drug rehab, and the criminal justice system which where a large percent of these kids are heading without some job skills.

Then they shouldn't have a problem investing that little in themselves. They don't have a problem demanding someone else do it.

The tax payer is going to pay either way, job training now, or more low income workers to support later as well dealing the cost of the social problems that grow out of poverty.

False comparison. You ASSume that if someone doesn't go to a two year community college they'll automatically be societal problems and live in poverty. You have absolutely not proof to back that up. We have people today that have good educations living in poverty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, when Republicans gave the student loan program to banks, the banks were getting 6 billion a year in free money selling risk free loans. You ask, "Why are they risk free"? Because the government would guarantee payment of any defaults. Banks shared no risk.

So take that 6 billion a year and instead of giving it to the banks, use it to make Jr. College free. How is that not a great idea?

You have at least one point, the banks have been granted a bit of a scam.

Interest is the fee paid for banks to assume a risk, as you point out, the only risk involved in student loans is the risk to tax payers.

Of course you then fly out of orbit and blame student loans on "the Republicans" which is utterly absurd.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Define good. Some have suggested a 2.5 gpa. That sucks.

There is a technical college where I live that fits what you describe related to trades. Most programs are 65 hours for an Associate degree and they offer certificate programs is someone simply wants to learn the trade without the degree. Worst case, that's approximately 16 hours total. Someone taking 16 hours/semester will cost them $1551/semester x 4 semester is $6,204. Let them invest in their education. That's not a lot if it's supposed to produce what you say it will produce is better paid workers.

65 hours for an Associates Degree?

An Associates requires 60 units. Unless you have some "college" offering classes which are 3 hours for the entire course, that would be difficult to do. Generally assume 120 hours of course work for a 3 unit class in an accredited program.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A $6100 investment in education is better than paying out ten times that amount in food stamps, child support, welfare, unemployment, drug rehab, and the criminal justice system which where a large percent of these kids are heading without some job skills.

You present a false dichotomy - this idiocy will do nothing to alter the social standing of the people engaged.

Name one job a person with an AA is qualified for, that someone with a high school diploma is not?

Obama seeks to buy the votes of the young, after being abandoned in the mid-terms - but all he offers is bullshit.

 

[Flopper]

Keep in mind community college is not just for those seeking bachelor's and advanced degree. Community colleges offer many 2 yr degrees and certificates in healthcare, building trades, business, and technology. These programs are designed to teach specific jobs skills. The courses are not generally transferable to a 4 year school but offer specific job training. Most kids coming out of high school with only average grades can do well in these programs if they apply themselves.

These programs are good for kids without the academic background for college but want training to help them get started in a field.

Then let them invest in their own future.

There is a well known and reputable technical college where I live. It does much the same while also offering college transfer course for what one would call general education classes. Most degrees are somewhere around 70 semester hours. For example, the Fire Science degree is 71. It involves 5 semesters ranging from 12 - 15 hours based on a recommended schedule. Lottery money is used to offset the costs. That's an average of 14 hours/semester x 5 semesters. The costs, having looked on the school's website, for a 14 hour semester is $1229. $1229 x 5 = $6,145.

As far as employment is concerned, the job placement rate is 83% according to the school's website. Not a bad personal investment with those results.

A $6100 investment in education is better than paying out ten times that amount in food stamps, child support, welfare, unemployment, drug rehab, and the criminal justice system which where a large percent of these kids are heading without some job skills.

Then they shouldn't have a problem investing that little in themselves. They don't have a problem demanding someone else do it.

The tax payer is going to pay either way, job training now, or more low income workers to support later as well dealing the cost of the social problems that grow out of poverty.

False comparison. You ASSume that if someone doesn't go to a two year community college they'll automatically be societal problems and live in poverty. You have absolutely not proof to back that up. We have people today that have good educations living in poverty.

Attending community college will certainly not automatically eliminate all social problems and poverty. However, there is an abundance of statistics which shows that people with more education make more money than those with less education. Low income earners have higher crime rates, higher divorce rates, lower marriage rates, more substance abuse, and more health problems. This all adds up to more expense for the tax payer and a less desirable social environment which effects everyone.

 

[Conservative65]

Then let them invest in their own future.

There is a well known and reputable technical college where I live. It does much the same while also offering college transfer course for what one would call general education classes. Most degrees are somewhere around 70 semester hours. For example, the Fire Science degree is 71. It involves 5 semesters ranging from 12 - 15 hours based on a recommended schedule. Lottery money is used to offset the costs. That's an average of 14 hours/semester x 5 semesters. The costs, having looked on the school's website, for a 14 hour semester is $1229. $1229 x 5 = $6,145.

As far as employment is concerned, the job placement rate is 83% according to the school's website. Not a bad personal investment with those results.

A $6100 investment in education is better than paying out ten times that amount in food stamps, child support, welfare, unemployment, drug rehab, and the criminal justice system which where a large percent of these kids are heading without some job skills.

Then they shouldn't have a problem investing that little in themselves. They don't have a problem demanding someone else do it.

The tax payer is going to pay either way, job training now, or more low income workers to support later as well dealing the cost of the social problems that grow out of poverty.

False comparison. You ASSume that if someone doesn't go to a two year community college they'll automatically be societal problems and live in poverty. You have absolutely not proof to back that up. We have people today that have good educations living in poverty.

Attending community college will certainly not automatically eliminate all social problems and poverty. However, there is an abundance of statistics which shows that people with more education make more money than those with less education. Low income earners have higher crime rates, higher divorce rates, lower marriage rates, more substance abuse, and more health problems. This all adds up to more expense for the tax payer and a less desirable social environment which effects everyone.

Then your argument that we'll pay either way is just as I said, false. You have no way of knowing whether it will do any of what you said. It's speculation.

If I'm going to be forced to invest in such a program, I want as much of a guarantee that it will produce results as I have with a Certificate of Deposit in my local bank. Your speculation doesn't come close.

All those things you give as reasons for this involve actions by an individual that can only change when the individual decides. There are far more low income earners that don't commit crimes, don't divorce, don't abuse drugs, and don't have major health problems than do. What you propose is just another redistribution program that will fail as miserably as the war on poverty has failed.

 

[Flopper]

A $6100 investment in education is better than paying out ten times that amount in food stamps, child support, welfare, unemployment, drug rehab, and the criminal justice system which where a large percent of these kids are heading without some job skills.

You present a false dichotomy - this idiocy will do nothing to alter the social standing of the people engaged.

Name one job a person with an AA is qualified for, that someone with a high school diploma is not?

Obama seeks to buy the votes of the young, after being abandoned in the mid-terms - but all he offers is bullshit.

Theater stage design, Costume design, Theater lighting, Digital media production, Preschool Education, Personal Trainers, Healthcare Records Management, License Practical Nurse, Photojournalist,.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Theater stage design, Costume design, Theater lighting, Digital media production, Preschool Education, Personal Trainers, Healthcare Records Management, License Practical Nurse, Photojournalist,.....

Utter bullshit.

Jobs come in two flavors, those that require a bachelors degree or greater, and those which don't.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The value of a "general" or non-specialized degree is almost non-existent now.
Adding even more unqualified people for even more worthless degrees further dilutes the value.
Soon, and likely before Obama exits - you will see the liberals trying to push for lower standards as OVERWHELMING numbers of federal-grant students never graduate. In some schools less than 10% ever achieve a degree. But by all means - lets not address this huge issue, lets just keep piling up more failing students and pat eachother on the back for helping the under privileged.

 

[Flopper]

A $6100 investment in education is better than paying out ten times that amount in food stamps, child support, welfare, unemployment, drug rehab, and the criminal justice system which where a large percent of these kids are heading without some job skills.

Then they shouldn't have a problem investing that little in themselves. They don't have a problem demanding someone else do it.

The tax payer is going to pay either way, job training now, or more low income workers to support later as well dealing the cost of the social problems that grow out of poverty.

False comparison. You ASSume that if someone doesn't go to a two year community college they'll automatically be societal problems and live in poverty. You have absolutely not proof to back that up. We have people today that have good educations living in poverty.

Attending community college will certainly not automatically eliminate all social problems and poverty. However, there is an abundance of statistics which shows that people with more education make more money than those with less education. Low income earners have higher crime rates, higher divorce rates, lower marriage rates, more substance abuse, and more health problems. This all adds up to more expense for the tax payer and a less desirable social environment which effects everyone.

Then your argument that we'll pay either way is just as I said, false. You have no way of knowing whether it will do any of what you said. It's speculation.

If I'm going to be forced to invest in such a program, I want as much of a guarantee that it will produce results as I have with a Certificate of Deposit in my local bank. Your speculation doesn't come close.

All those things you give as reasons for this involve actions by an individual that can only change when the individual decides. There are far more low income earners that don't commit crimes, don't divorce, don't abuse drugs, and don't have major health problems than do. What you propose is just another redistribution program that will fail as miserably as the war on poverty has failed.

You say, "I want as much of a guarantee that it will produce results as I have with a Certificate of Deposit in my local bank." There is no guarantee that a 60 billion dollar expenditure on defense will make you any safer. Another billion dollars to Homeland security may do nothing to stop illegal immigration. An argument that an investment in education is a a poor one, is a poor argument. There is ample proof to the contrary.

 

[Conservative65]

Define good. Some have suggested a 2.5 gpa. That sucks.

There is a technical college where I live that fits what you describe related to trades. Most programs are 65 hours for an Associate degree and they offer certificate programs is someone simply wants to learn the trade without the degree. Worst case, that's approximately 16 hours total. Someone taking 16 hours/semester will cost them $1551/semester x 4 semester is $6,204. Let them invest in their education. That's not a lot if it's supposed to produce what you say it will produce is better paid workers.

65 hours for an Associates Degree?

An Associates requires 60 units. Unless you have some "college" offering classes which are 3 hours for the entire course, that would be difficult to do. Generally assume 120 hours of course work for a 3 unit class in an accredited program.

You don't have to believe me but I can prove what I said. When I do prove that the one I used as an example is 65 or more, all I ask of you is to admit you're wrong.

Then they shouldn't have a problem investing that little in themselves. They don't have a problem demanding someone else do it.

The tax payer is going to pay either way, job training now, or more low income workers to support later as well dealing the cost of the social problems that grow out of poverty.

False comparison. You ASSume that if someone doesn't go to a two year community college they'll automatically be societal problems and live in poverty. You have absolutely not proof to back that up. We have people today that have good educations living in poverty.

Attending community college will certainly not automatically eliminate all social problems and poverty. However, there is an abundance of statistics which shows that people with more education make more money than those with less education. Low income earners have higher crime rates, higher divorce rates, lower marriage rates, more substance abuse, and more health problems. This all adds up to more expense for the tax payer and a less desirable social environment which effects everyone.

Then your argument that we'll pay either way is just as I said, false. You have no way of knowing whether it will do any of what you said. It's speculation.

If I'm going to be forced to invest in such a program, I want as much of a guarantee that it will produce results as I have with a Certificate of Deposit in my local bank. Your speculation doesn't come close.

All those things you give as reasons for this involve actions by an individual that can only change when the individual decides. There are far more low income earners that don't commit crimes, don't divorce, don't abuse drugs, and don't have major health problems than do. What you propose is just another redistribution program that will fail as miserably as the war on poverty has failed.

You say, "I want as much of a guarantee that it will produce results as I have with a Certificate of Deposit in my local bank." There is no guarantee that a 60 billion dollar expenditure on defense will make you any safer. Another billion dollars to Homeland security may do nothing to stop illegal immigration. An argument that an investment in education is a a poor one, is a poor argument. There is ample proof to the contrary.

An argument that it's my place to fund the college education of someone else's kids is so poor it can hardly be considered an argument. Talking shit is more like it. There is no proof that it's one person's place to do that for another person's kid.

 

[Flopper]

The value of a "general" or non-specialized degree is almost non-existent now.
Adding even more unqualified people for even more worthless degrees further dilutes the value.
Soon, and likely before Obama exits - you will see the liberals trying to push for lower standards as OVERWHELMING numbers of federal-grant students never graduate. In some schools less than 10% ever achieve a degree. But by all means - lets not address this huge issue, lets just keep piling up more failing students and pat eachother on the back for helping the under privileged.

I was just looking at degrees offered in the local community college. There are over 75 curriculums, and only one is in general studies. Over 90% of these degrees do provide valuable job skills.

After I retired I taught computer courses at a local community college. The courses I taught prepared students to pass certification exams in network administration and workstation assistant. Most of the students had no experience, yet almost all were able to find jobs in the field. Granted most of the jobs weren't that great but they were a start, something they wouldn't get with just a high school diploma.

 

[Conservative65]

The value of a "general" or non-specialized degree is almost non-existent now.
Adding even more unqualified people for even more worthless degrees further dilutes the value.
Soon, and likely before Obama exits - you will see the liberals trying to push for lower standards as OVERWHELMING numbers of federal-grant students never graduate. In some schools less than 10% ever achieve a degree. But by all means - lets not address this huge issue, lets just keep piling up more failing students and pat eachother on the back for helping the under privileged.

I was just looking at degrees offered in the local community college. There are over 75 curriculums, and only one is in general studies. Over 90% of these degrees do provide valuable job skills.

After I retired I taught computer courses at a local community college. The courses I taught prepared students to pass certification exams in network administration and workstation assistant. Most of the students had no experience, yet almost all were able to find jobs in the field. Granted most of the jobs weren't that great but they were a start, something they wouldn't get with just a high school diploma.

So we should be willing to invest in something that you admit won't create anythingn but not so great jobs? No thanks.

 

[Conservative65]

The point I've confirmed is that I while I got mine, I don't expect anything more of others than I do myself. When I'm meeting my responsibility as a parent and I see others demanding I meet it for their kids because they won't, you have part of it right. It isn't I got mine, it's fuck the rest of you that want me to do for you what you won't do for your own kids.

You have a problem with me wanting to use MY money for MY kids yet you don't have one demanding I be forced to do what another parent isn't for their own kids. I don't owe them a college education.

You're still stuck in the same blind spot.
Such an idea is not for the benefit of "your" kids, "my" kids, "his", "her" or "their" kids. It's for the benefit of the greater whole, the country, the culture, the society, choose your term. Just as the fire department isn't there to protect "your" property or "mine". You keep trying to personalize the Commons into the Personal Possession as if it's some kind of trinket that must be "owned" by one entity or another, that's your blind spot.

This just in: not everything in life is material, and not everything is quantifiable as "X amount of money".

This proposal isn't for the benefit of my kids. My kids will be going to a real college not the 13th and 14th grade like community college.

Your blind spot is that you have already determined that it will benefit the greater whole without one damn bit of proof to back it up.

Yuh huh.
Then why do we publicly fund 1-12?

Matter o' fact why do we require education at all if there's no benefit to the Commons?

For that matter why does the concept of education even exist? To benefit Numero Uno if Numero Uno can afford it?

See what I mean? You still don't get it.

Let me explain it to you using the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States. Delegated means expressed or in simple terms, written. Prohibited means you can't do it. Reserved means that the body granted that type of power can, but it not required to, make laws related to it. Reserved does not mean that if the body given that type of power chooses not to do anything related to the federal government, by default, gets it.

Knowing that, let's answer your question of why do we publicly fund 1 - 12? There is no simple answer. ALL you need to realize and acknowledge is that the authority to pass any laws related to education belongs to the States not the federal government regardless of level of education. There is absolutely no express, delegated, or written authority for the federal government to do anything related to education. Therefore, according to the Constitution, the authority, under RESERVED powers, falls to the States as to whether or not they choose to do it. All 50 have chosen to do it with nothing in one State having to do with anything in another State unless the STATES agree between themselves. For example, my State of SC has certain requirements in order to be a certified teacher. The requirements of GA, our next door neighbor, aren't exactly the same although many similarities exist. I had a friend that moved from SC to GA to teach and she was informed that GA would accept her teaching certificate from SC with one requirement she had to meet. She has to take a special education class because GA, under the reserved powers to regulate what the federal government has no authority to regulate, thinks its teachers should have that class.

Back to your question. Since the authority to regulate education falls to the States through RESERVED powers, there's that word again, if a State chooses to fund its educational system with taxes provided by those within the State, they have that authority unless in doing it, the laws created to do it violate the U.S. Constitution. Since State's have the concurrent power to tax related to things intrastate, it doesn't violate the Constitution. That's why we fund things through the 12th grade.

Many supporters of this use California as an example of a State that funded college then blame Reagan for doing away with it. If only those within California funded college through their taxes, California, under RESERVED powers, can do that as level of education is irrelevant. However, what California can't do is place taxes on others States to fund it as that is against the Constitution. I don't agree with that but I don't live in California.

There are federal guidelines such as those under No Child Left Behind that many States adopted. Do you think those States had to adopt those guideline because the federal government established them?

The same concept can be applied to healthcare. Many Obamacare supporters say Romney put something similar in place in Massachusetts so why don't Republicans support it nationwide. Same explanation. Healthcare isn't a delegated power, therefore, if a State chooses to do something like was done in Massachusetts and it involves only that State, they have that power. What they can't do is tax other States to fund it.

Got it?

The constitution says nothing about education but the fact is the federal government has had it's hand in education since the beginning. Federal involvement began more than 225 years ago, even before George Washington was president, when Congress passed two laws -- the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 -- to create and maintain public schools in the expanding United States.

The national government also encouraged the establishment of state institutions of higher education. During the Civil War, Congress passed the Morrill Act, resulting in the University of Illinois, the University of California, and 74 other institutions. Signed by Abraham Lincoln, this Act used the same land grant policy for higher education as was used for public schools. Since then the federal government has passed many educational bills and has been a partner with states to insure quality education throughout the country..

The question is why haven't the states challenge the federal government's involvement in education before the Supreme Court? I can think of a few reasons. No state government really wants to see the federal government step out education, regardless of the rhetoric from the right. Many of the functions the Dept of Education now does would be duplicated by every state. Federal funding would disappear and the federal government could not provide any funds for education even during economic crisis which would result in an increase in state and local taxes increase. Then there's national goals and leadership. There's not a single developed country that does not have national leadership, funding, and goal setting in education. In fact, countries that are blowing us out of the water in education all have stronger federal control over local education than the US does. Lastly, if the issue should ever find it's way to the Supreme Court, you can bet they are not going to reverse two hundred years of history by stopping federal involvement in education.

Invalid examples. If you knew history you would know why and wouldn't have used them.

Why do you think the federal government didn't mandate all states follow No Child Left Behind.