Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Low- and middle-income students would pay nothing for tuition at in-state public colleges under a new part of her college affordability plan unveiled Wednesday.
Any student whose family earns $85,000 or less would be eligible at first. The income level would go up by $10,000 each year until 2021, when anyone whose family makes $125,000 a year or less would go tuition-free.
That would cover more than 80% of all families, the Clinton campaign said."
so we get Bernie's socialist policies anyway, but get stuck with her.
What's the problem with that? Bernie has some good ideas, so why shouldn't those be incorporated into mainstream Democratic policy?
Moreover, we've tried the capitalist trickle-down BS for 30+ years and all we've gotten from that is a lot of middle class people getting poorer and a lot of rich people getting even richer. Time to try something else.
What's the problem with that? Bernie has some good ideas, so why shouldn't those be incorporated into mainstream Democratic policy?
Moreover, we've tried the capitalist trickle-down BS for 30+ years and all we've gotten from that is a lot of middle class people getting poorer and a lot of rich people getting even richer. Time to try something else.
I can't put a timeframe on it, but we definitely have not had anything close to capitalism in the financial industry, auto industry, health care industry, or higher education for YEARS.
What's the problem with that? Bernie has some good ideas, so why shouldn't those be incorporated into mainstream Democratic policy?
Moreover, we've tried the capitalist trickle-down BS for 30+ years and all we've gotten from that is a lot of middle class people getting poorer and a lot of rich people getting even richer. Time to try something else.
Why don't we do it the way Scandinavian and European countries do? Switch our tax system from progressive to regressive, which results in the collection of more tax revenue, and reduce inequality to a much greater degree, as the European and Scandinavian countries do:
Quote:
Everyone knows that Europe's welfare states are much more progressive than the United States', in that they reduce inequality by a much greater percent.
...The United States has by far the most progressive income, payroll, wealth and property taxes of any developed country. Scandinavian social democracies like Denmark, Sweden and Norway have quite regressive direct taxes, as do the Netherlands and Switzerland. ...The disparity is even starker when you bring sales taxes into the mix, as VATs are an extremely important source of revenue for most European countries
...UC Davis's Peter Lindert has argued in his book "Growing Public" that European social democracies were only able to develop the programs they did because they used efficient consumption taxes that didn't lower growth as much as progressive income taxes, particularly those on capital income. European countries needed tax systems that could raise a lot of money without hurting growth, and only regressive consumption taxes fit the bill.
...Prasad and Deng found that the progressivity of countries' tax codes is negatively correlated with the amount of redistribution they do. In English: The less progressive the [tax] code, the more progressive the system.
Be sure to read the charts, as well. It's important to understand why relying on a progressive tax system is ineffective at achieving social democrats' goals.
What's the problem with that? Bernie has some good ideas, so why shouldn't those be incorporated into mainstream Democratic policy?
Hillary.
Quote:
Moreover, we've tried the capitalist trickle-down BS for 30+ years and all we've gotten from that is a lot of middle class people getting poorer and a lot of rich people getting even richer. Time to try something else.
A blank check to a useless "intellectual elite" industry that provides nothing of value funded by the perpetual slavery of the taxpayer. Before I get vilified, I have both Business Management and Mechanical Engineering degrees. Virtually every moment, and thus every dollar, was a complete waste. The only valuable "service" provided by the University were the labs that I otherwise would have never had access to. All "lectures" and "class" time was time absolutely wasted. I never understood the concept of attending lectures regarding the concepts covered in the course texts and materials. I often wondered if the "university" was designed only for people who had no reading comprehension or were only semi-literate. (The Business degree was an absolute waste of time in its entirety...jargon and common sense.) And that was quite some time ago.
Public funding of "higher education" in an age where all information is freely available is beyond absurd. It is nothing more than a handout to "educators" who can produce nothing else of value to their fellow man. If the "intellectual elite" wish to earn money, they can research and write textbooks. They don't need to get government handouts to reiterate or explain information that is freely available to anyone...
I feel you. I have 3 college degrees, worked very hard to walk away without a lot of debt.
While I believe public college should be cheaper, i.e. in Arizona in state tuition doubled in 5 years during the recession, and is now a permanent increase.
I do disagree that College was a waste, while in hindsight it looks like you didn't learn anything, you have to look at it from where you started.
I have not (and will not) read all the posts, so perhaps this has been covered.
I see repeatedly in what posts I did read that High School is "free", so college should be "free" as well.
I am amazed that there are people who think that K-12 education is FREE!
I am reminded that it is NOT free every time I see what the State took out of my mortgage escrow account for "school taxes", and every time the school district wants to increase the mil levy so they get more money.
"FREE" college will be exactly the same! What will they tax to pay for it? Will it be another "sin tax" such as the tobacco tax? No, sorry, that won't work, just as the things that are already paid for with it are going broke. Smokers quit or die, so the tax revenue is drying up.
Maybe they can pattern it after the fuel taxes that are supposed to pay for roads and bridges. No, because that is drying up, too, as the fuel economy mandates and high prices mean that less fuel is being sold, so less tax money is coming in.
We elderly folks are paying for the K-12 schools YOUR kids are going to. We do not want to pay for YOUR kids to go to college as well!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Switch our tax system from progressive to regressive, which results in the collection of more tax revenue, and reduce inequality to a much greater degree, as the European and Scandinavian countries do:
