Obama: Free College!

[Nice Squirrel]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/pf/college/obama-free-college/index.html

Free education "for those willing to work for it."

That's what President Obama said he would like to see in an announcement the White House posted to Facebook and Vine on Thursday.

He's proposing to make the first two years of community college free.
"Everyone understands that education is the key to success for our kids in the 21st century, but what we also understand is that it's not just for kids. We also have to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to constantly train themselves for better jobs, better wages and better benefits," the president said.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/08/pf/college/obama-free-college/index.html

Free education "for those willing to work for it."

That's what President Obama said he would like to see in an announcement the White House posted to Facebook and Vine on Thursday.

He's proposing to make the first two years of community college free.
"Everyone understands that education is the key to success for our kids in the 21st century, but what we also understand is that it's not just for kids. We also have to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to constantly train themselves for better jobs, better wages and better benefits," the president said.

Trying to put all the industries that depend on low skilled, low information workers outta business eh?

Thanks Obama

 

[Davka]

What's next? Houses for the homeless? When will the madness end????

 

[untermensche]

Obama can't do this when the Republicans control the Senate and the House.

He can't do anything but talk about things like this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Obama can't do this when the Republicans control the Senate and the House.

He can't do anything but talk about things like this.

Funding for this should be easy. Stop giving any financial aid to students at fake colleges and shift that money to the Community Schools.

 

[Davka]

Obama can't do this when the Republicans control the Senate and the House.

He can't do anything but talk about things like this.

IDK - he seems to have done quite a bit via executive actions. If it's constitutional for him to order that this program be started (and he should know if it is or not), then he probably will - and he'll leave the Republicans with the problem of telling people their college educations are cut short due to GOP failure to continue the program.

 

[Axulus]

Obama can't do this when the Republicans control the Senate and the House.

He can't do anything but talk about things like this.

IDK - he seems to have done quite a bit via executive actions. If it's constitutional for him to order that this program be started (and he should know if it is or not), then he probably will - and he'll leave the Republicans with the problem of telling people their college educations are cut short due to GOP failure to continue the program.

Executive orders are typically limited to directives given to the federal departments he is in charge of. He can't allocate funds for anything that isn't already allocated or authorized by congress. What he is doing right now is revealing things he will discuss at the SOTU address.

 

[Davka]

IDK - he seems to have done quite a bit via executive actions. If it's constitutional for him to order that this program be started (and he should know if it is or not), then he probably will - and he'll leave the Republicans with the problem of telling people their college educations are cut short due to GOP failure to continue the program.

Executive orders are typically limited to directives given to the federal departments he is in charge of. He can't allocate funds for anything that isn't already allocated or authorized by congress. What he is doing right now is revealing things he will discuss at the SOTU address.

Most likely true. He can redirect funding without Congressional approval though, can't he?

And even if it's only an idea he's going to float in the SOTU, it's one that Republicans are going to have to explain that we "can't afford." Subsidies for fracking we can afford, but not education?

 

[laughing dog]

Candidate Obama talked about that. President Obama talked about it during his first term. So, now he is getting serious? Nah, I think this is some political game.

 

[rednoise]

Meh. This is unremarkable when you take into account most kids debt accrues when they get into 4-year college, not 2-year; but also that other nations all around the world provides higher education to citizens without tuition or for extremely low fees.

Forgive the student debt, first of all. Then directly fund all higher education institutions, second. Anything less than that is worthless, especially when he's a lame duck. He can force the issue of debt forgiveness and direct funding, at least, but he's playing this like he played healthcare. Not even considering single-payer, and then meekly backing off a public option. Lame shit.

 

[none]

Candidate Obama talked about that. President Obama talked about it during his first term. So, now he is getting serious? Nah, I think this is some political game.

It is called progress.

 

[rednoise]

Candidate Obama talked about that. President Obama talked about it during his first term. So, now he is getting serious? Nah, I think this is some political game.

It is called progress.

lol

 

[Axulus]

Considering we have a higher proportion of students attending 2 year and 4 year colleges than we ever have before in the history of the United States (currently 2/3rds of high school graduates enroll in college), cost does not appear to be a major impediment to attendance. Furthermore, median earnings are over 50% much for 4 year bachelor degree holders compared to high school graduates (age 25-34). Having college completely free amounts essentially to a middle class handout, continuing the pattern of the vast majority of government benefits going to those in the middle class.

In 2012, the median earnings for full-time year-round working young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor's degree was $46,900, while the median was $22,900 for those without a high school diploma or its equivalent, $30,000 for those with a high school diploma or its equivalent, and $35,700 for those with an associate's degree. In other words, young adults with a bachelor's degree earned more than twice as much as those without a high school diploma or its equivalent (105 percent more) and 57 percent more than young adult high school completers. Additionally, in 2012 the median earnings for young adults with a master's degree or higher was $59,600, some 27 percent more than the median for young adults with a bachelor's degree (source).

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

Wouldn't it be better to first take care of the bottom quintile before doing yet another massive handout to the middle class?

 

[Valjean]

Candidate Obama talked about that. President Obama talked about it during his first term. So, now he is getting serious? Nah, I think this is some political game.

It is called progress.

But inasmuch as he's advocating turning back the clock to the policies of the 50s or 60s, when state college tuition was often free or heavily subsidized, would "progress" be the proper term? Turning back the clock is usually considered a conservative or right wing policy.

It's not like this policy is going to cost the taxpayers any money. Remember the G-I Bill, where the government gave the returning G-Is a free college education? -- they made money on the deal! Over the next couple decades the government recouped several times over the cost of the program, in increased taxes alone.
Higher education is a proven, high-yield investment.

So why would conservatives balk at paying for college?
1) College creates a middle class. Middle classes tend to be liberal and troublesome. They're idealistic. They forced us out of Vietnam. They resist exploitation -- foreign and domestic. They're an impediment to the military-industrial complex. They're an impediment to "economic royalists".
If the business of America is business, a middle class is bad for business.

2) Today's conservatives oppose a government role in social programs. Government's function is to protect our shores and maintain fertile ground for business.
There's money to be made in higher education, and a high demand for it. It's a gold mine. A lot of good businessmen have a finger in the pie. -- laissez-faire.

 

[none]

I don't know but he's black, mentions it as a candidate, mentions it as the president, and wants it to be publish on the Web with some detail. Sound like progress to me. Maybe you were thinking he should shelve the idea

 

[Axulus]

It is called progress.

But inasmuch as he's advocating turning back the clock to the policies of the 50s or 60s, when state college tuition was often free or heavily subsidized, would "progress" be the proper term? Turning back the clock is usually considered a conservative or right wing policy.

It's not like this policy is going to cost the taxpayers any money. Remember the G-I Bill, where the government gave the returning G-Is a free college education? -- they made money on the deal! Over the next couple decades the government recouped several times over the cost of the program, in increased taxes alone.
Higher education is a proven, high-yield investment.

So why would conservatives balk at paying for college?
1) College creates a middle class. Middle classes tend to be liberal and troublesome. They're idealistic. They forced us out of Vietnam. They resist exploitation -- foreign and domestic. They're an impediment to the military-industrial complex. They're an impediment to "economic royalists".
If the business of America is business, a middle class is bad for business.

2) Today's conservatives oppose a government role in social programs. Government's function is to protect our shores and maintain fertile ground for business.
There's money to be made in higher education, and a high demand for it. It's a gold mine. A lot of good businessmen have a finger in the pie. -- laissez-faire.

3) Since the government already pays for college for the bottom quintile (federal aid and grants) and pays partial for the 2nd quintile, and those who graduate college earn far more money than those who don't, paying for college for the rest amounts to a handout to the middle class and those who will do quite well financially (and can therefore afford to pay back the student debt). With homelessness and distressed neighborhoods in existence, how can this largess be justified, creating further income inequality and a further rift between the bottom 20% and the rest? Unless a permanent underclass (the bottom 20% and to some extent the bottom 40%) is the goal, why give more money and benefits to those who are already in the best position to do well in our society?

 

[Toni]

But inasmuch as he's advocating turning back the clock to the policies of the 50s or 60s, when state college tuition was often free or heavily subsidized, would "progress" be the proper term? Turning back the clock is usually considered a conservative or right wing policy.

It's not like this policy is going to cost the taxpayers any money. Remember the G-I Bill, where the government gave the returning G-Is a free college education? -- they made money on the deal! Over the next couple decades the government recouped several times over the cost of the program, in increased taxes alone.
Higher education is a proven, high-yield investment.

So why would conservatives balk at paying for college?
1) College creates a middle class. Middle classes tend to be liberal and troublesome. They're idealistic. They forced us out of Vietnam. They resist exploitation -- foreign and domestic. They're an impediment to the military-industrial complex. They're an impediment to "economic royalists".
If the business of America is business, a middle class is bad for business.

2) Today's conservatives oppose a government role in social programs. Government's function is to protect our shores and maintain fertile ground for business.
There's money to be made in higher education, and a high demand for it. It's a gold mine. A lot of good businessmen have a finger in the pie. -- laissez-faire.

3) Since the government already pays for college for the bottom quintile (federal aid and grants) and pays partial for the 2nd quintile, and those who graduate college earn far more money than those who don't, paying for college for the rest amounts to a handout to the middle class and those who will do quite well financially (and can therefore afford to pay back the student debt). With homelessness and distressed neighborhoods in existence, how can this largess be justified, creating further income inequality and a further rift between the bottom 20% and the rest? Unless a permanent underclass (the bottom 20% and to some extent the bottom 40%) is the goal, why give more money and benefits to those who are already in the best position to do well in our society?

The government doesn't already pay for college for the bottom 20%. It pays a good portion, sure but not the whole thing. And those loans can be crippling for even students who graduate and move immediately into well paying jobs. Coming up with a couple of thousand dollars a semester is not too hard for middle class and even lower middle class families. But for families near the bottom, and let's face it: sometimes 'family' is a stretch--it's all on the 18 year old--it can make that reach so precarious that even one tiny bit of bad luck puts college completely out of reach. Especially if that 18 year old's job isn't being used to cover college housing and books and food but instead is being used to keep a roof over grandma's head. BTW, this is not a hypothetical but the real life situation of a young adult I am acquainted with. He ended up dropping out not because of his grades but because the financial burdens placed upon him by mistakes his 'family' made over and over made it impossible for him to continue. But he got to keep the burden of the loans. Yay!

 

[Davka]

In Tennessee, where this program has already been implemented statewide, the kids taking advantage of it are primarily in the bottom quintile or just above it. Middle-class kids don't tend to go to community college.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why is he calling it "free"? Someone, somewhere is going to pay for it (if it happens).

 

[Davka]

Why is he calling it "free"? Someone, somewhere is going to pay for it (if it happens).

Free to the student, at the time. Most people understand tanstaafl.