Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow what a charge: his political beliefs are rooted in philosophy. Shit, not like yours, Billy, eh? Yours are rooted in ignorance and emotion. Shame on Kaz for developing political beliefs that follow from serious thought and study. He ought to just watch kittens being killed and develop his philosophy from that gut reaction.Your political beliefs are almost entirely rooted in philosophy. You say things that just sound like they make sense to you. It doesn't change the irrefutable truth that millions seeking higher education benefits the country as a whole. You also don't seem to realize the amount of hard work that goes into pursuing a degree. Do you really think pursing a degree is not without tremendous personal responsibility?Millions of people going to college over time benefits the country as a whole. That is the truth.The estimated cost per year for the government providing free tuition would be about 60 billion. Bernie would place a tax on Wall Street speculation to pay for it.
Now before you all go into your rants about "liberal free lunch bullshit derp, derp, derp!" you should consider WHY this is a great idea. This isn't about giving individuals hand outs, this is about how higher education benefits the country as a whole. Plenty of intelligent people who cannot afford to go to college or are discouraged by the massive student debt that they would accumulate choose not to attend. Imagine the implications if we had an influx of people getting degrees in science, public policy, or business administration. Don't you think those educated people would bring a great deal of contribution to this country?
Of course it's about "giving individuals handouts." What is wrong with you? There is nothing good to the country about using other people's money to take away people's responsibility to provide for themselves. Government funds it and you just fund a bunch more people who get stupid degrees that don't lead to jobs and continue to skyrocket the cost of education as you pump limitless more unaccountable money into colleges.
Nothing benefits the country as a whole when you remove personal responsibility. You just create inefficient, corrupt wasteful systems
Given the nature of money management and investment banking that actiivity will easily move off shore, to Ireland or the like. Then libs can complain about Republicans off shoring more jobs.The estimated cost per year for the government providing free tuition would be about 60 billion. Bernie would place a tax on Wall Street speculation to pay for it.
Now before you all go into your rants about "liberal free lunch bullshit derp, derp, derp!" you should consider WHY this is a great idea. This isn't about giving individuals hand outs, this is about how higher education benefits the country as a whole. Plenty of intelligent people who cannot afford to go to college or are discouraged by the massive student debt that they would accumulate choose not to attend. Imagine the implications if we had an influx of people getting degrees in science, public policy, or business administration. Don't you think those educated people would bring a great deal of contribution to this country?
The bill plans to cover these costs by initiating a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. A .5% speculation fee will be charged on investment houses, hedge funds, and other stock trades. Additionally, a .1% fee will be charged on bonds, and a .005% fee will be charged on derivatives.
Excellent idea! We need to eliminate more of these high paid jobs on Wall Street.
And when the tax drives those jobs away and raises a fraction of the amount needed to fund
this stupid plan, who will he get the money from?
By the way, Robin Hood stole from the tax collectors and gave back to the people.
Given the nature of money management and investment banking that actiivity will easily move off shore, to Ireland or the like. Then libs can complain about Republicans off shoring more jobs.The estimated cost per year for the government providing free tuition would be about 60 billion. Bernie would place a tax on Wall Street speculation to pay for it.
Now before you all go into your rants about "liberal free lunch bullshit derp, derp, derp!" you should consider WHY this is a great idea. This isn't about giving individuals hand outs, this is about how higher education benefits the country as a whole. Plenty of intelligent people who cannot afford to go to college or are discouraged by the massive student debt that they would accumulate choose not to attend. Imagine the implications if we had an influx of people getting degrees in science, public policy, or business administration. Don't you think those educated people would bring a great deal of contribution to this country?
The bill plans to cover these costs by initiating a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. A .5% speculation fee will be charged on investment houses, hedge funds, and other stock trades. Additionally, a .1% fee will be charged on bonds, and a .005% fee will be charged on derivatives.
Excellent idea! We need to eliminate more of these high paid jobs on Wall Street.
And when the tax drives those jobs away and raises a fraction of the amount needed to fund
this stupid plan, who will he get the money from?
By the way, Robin Hood stole from the tax collectors and gave back to the people.
Your political beliefs are almost entirely rooted in philosophy. You say things that just sound like they make sense to you
It doesn't change the irrefutable truth that millions seeking higher education benefits the country as a whole
You also don't seem to realize the amount of hard work that goes into pursuing a degree
Do you really think pursing a degree is not without tremendous personal responsibility?
Oh right those wall street goons earn every cent they make lol.You call taxes out of thin air? That's what would pay for it.Who is going to pay for that free tuition?
Money just appears out of thin air
Yes, exactly. You'd take billions from people who earned it. You just waive your hands and say it's good for the country and move on that it's OK to further plunder the achievers who drive the economy
Wait a minute, what about payback? I paid my way and now I want the government to take over my car payments.
Wait a minute, what about payback? I paid my way and now I want the government to take over my car payments.
Naaa, all those who paid their own way are shit out of luck. to those on the left this is called, progress.
You people are so stupid. Like any government spending, it is paid for with revenue. In this case, a tax on Wall Street speculation.It isn't free. SOMEONE is paying. That's the thing that liberals are too stupid to understand. No liberal is more ignorant than a Sanders supporter.
Yes but none of this changes the fact that less college professors are working full time and are being paid flat. While the administrative costs do matter in the issue of rising cost of tuition, it doesn't change the fact that the primary reason for the higher costs is less government funding. These institutions depend on them. It says that in the very text you copied and pasted.I don't buy your source at all. The reality is that part time work among professors is on the rise and their salaries have remained flat between 2002 and 2010.Lol typically increased demand leads to lower prices, but I don't think that would happen here. You're talking about money that pays professors to do their job. It's not like the institutions are inclined to give these people big pay raises.
Please correct this post, you can't be serious. Increase demand ALWAYS leads to HIGHER prices. Maybe you are being sarcastic, you have to be.
As for wages:
For the rest of America wages have stagnated.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/0...-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html?referrer=
How staff benefits and student services drive up college tuition Education Lab Blog Seattle Times
From you first link, which answers all the statements you have made.
In fact, public investment in higher education in America is vastly larger today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was during the supposed golden age of public funding in the 1960s. Such spending has increased at a much faster rate than government spending in general. For example, the military’s budget is about 1.8 times higher today than it was in 1960, while legislative appropriations to higher education are more than 10 times higher.
In other words, far from being caused by funding cuts, the astonishing rise in college tuition correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education. If over the past three decades car prices had gone up as fast as tuition, the average new car would cost more than $80,000.
Some of this increased spending in education has been driven by a sharp rise in the percentage of Americans who go to college. While the college-age population has not increased since the tail end of the baby boom, the percentage of the population enrolled in college has risen significantly, especially in the last 20 years. Enrollment in undergraduate, graduate and professional programs has increased by almost 50 percent since 1995. As a consequence, while state legislative appropriations for higher education have risen much faster than inflation, total state appropriations per student are somewhat lower than they were at their peak in 1990. (Appropriations per student are much higher now than they were in the 1960s and 1970s, when tuition was a small fraction of what it is today.)
According to your source I will admit to being wrong in blaming the professors, although sources show otherwise professors don't seem to be the problem it is just colleges increasing administration to justify increase in costs.
From your link;
By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.
Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.
That is a problem with the administration of the college. College administrators, according to you link, are now demanding 7 figure wages. WTF do they do to earn that money?
You do realize, of course, that besides bloated defense spending, the primary reason our national debt is so high is because of Bush's tax cuts. Cutting revenue means more borrowing.Including tax cuts.education should be free to all those willing to learn
Oh gosh, not again, NOTHING in this life is FREE.
OMG is that an interesting statement. The only way it can be true is if you really believe that all our money belongs to the government. A tax cut is the same as the cost of a car being reduced.
Rightwingers: what do you think of Bernie's plan for free tuition?
It's not free gawd that was easy, next silly liberal question.
And anytime you get the government involved costs go up....see Obamacare
Wrong...
Are you stating everytime!! Look at VA healthcare costs compared to private.... You're wrong... There is countless times where a society is better to pay for stuff than leave it to private...
Your comment is just plain stupid...
Bullshit. As soon as the government pays for it the tuition will rise to 120 billion. And I don't want to pay for someone's political science degree.The estimated cost per year for the government providing free tuition would be about 60 billion.
And another Billy Triple Fail failed thread reaches its failure destination. Totally refuted by facts, logic, and common sense.Bullshit. As soon as the government pays for it the tuition will rise to 120 billion. And I don't want to pay for someone's political science degree.The estimated cost per year for the government providing free tuition would be about 60 billion.
Love seeing the right wingers give the ole 1% their usual weekly BJ.....everything for them nothing for the little man. Even thougIIh ALL the little man wants is a chance to not start a career 100k in debt or more.
Here are the actual facts that you are too dumb to grasp:Huh? That's a non sequitur even for you.No idiot because the debt still skyrocketed under Bush and look how low it was when. This isn't complicated to figure out.The point is made.Do you even know what point you're trying to make?You surrender on this issue is noted and accepted.Lol you are so pathetic.
The federal government is taking in record revenue by any measure. It isnt revenue, it's the spending, stupid.
Are you denying that revenue to the federal government is as high or higher now, either in dollar term, absolute dollar terms, or as a percentage of GDP, than it has been since 2000?
Irrelevant,.Here are the actual facts that you are too dumb to grasp:Huh? That's a non sequitur even for you.No idiot because the debt still skyrocketed under Bush and look how low it was when. This isn't complicated to figure out.The point is made.Do you even know what point you're trying to make?You surrender on this issue is noted and accepted.
The federal government is taking in record revenue by any measure. It isnt revenue, it's the spending, stupid.
Are you denying that revenue to the federal government is as high or higher now, either in dollar term, absolute dollar terms, or as a percentage of GDP, than it has been since 2000?
US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent
I modified the post showing you the actual content of Bush's and Obama's debt. You're wrong and you know you are wrong.Irrelevant,.Here are the actual facts that you are too dumb to grasp:Huh? That's a non sequitur even for you.No idiot because the debt still skyrocketed under Bush and look how low it was when. This isn't complicated to figure out.The point is made.Do you even know what point you're trying to make?
The federal government is taking in record revenue by any measure. It isnt revenue, it's the spending, stupid.
Are you denying that revenue to the federal government is as high or higher now, either in dollar term, absolute dollar terms, or as a percentage of GDP, than it has been since 2000?
US Debt by President By Dollar and Percent
What does debt have to do with revenue to the federal government, BIlly?
You are failing badly. Very badly.
