• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Media treatment of Bernie Sanders: a story in pictures

Does anybody have any reaction at all to the main purpose of this thread, which is to reveal that the media are already transparently lying in their reporting of Sanders? We can have a thread about his overall chances, but this one is supposed to be about the media's treatment of him.
Most of us probably don't care. We're what, almost 18 months from the actual election? So much is going to change between now and then. I like some of Bernie's platform. I don't like the way his followers handled themselves in 2016. I think because of his rabid base, which he has only made mild attempts to distance himself from, is poisonous to the DNC and the democratic process overall.

I don't actually care that much (which is not to say not at all) who wins the Dem primary, they will get my vote. It is a shitty position to be in, but the shitheel in the WH is just that bad. I actually think that if Bernie (or Biden, whom I used to like a lot more, and probably still prefer over Bernis) wins, he has less chance of beating the orange shitgibbon than most of the others, since so many people are turned off by him.

You still haven't posted any evidence that his popularity has increased "exponentially" since 2016. Based on my experience, it's been the opposite, but it probably depends on the people around me more than anything else. Got any polls to demonstrate this exponential skyrocketing?

The place to look isn't in his personal numbers, but in the acceptance of policies he forcefully advocated: Medicare for all, free higher education, student debt forgiveness, gay and trans rights, and so on. He didn't invent these, but he has always supported them. His popularity was formidable in 2016 when not all of these positions were at the forefront, and now they are becoming regular topics of conversation that all mainstream news outlets are asking of all candidates. He draws enormous crowds of supporters wherever he speaks, and raises many times more in individual small donations than the other candidates can get from corporate and financial backers.

There's also the fact that he is the current front-runner in a field of 743 candidates gunning for the nomination.

Bernie Sanders as a candidate and a person could scarcely be more different than Joe Biden. If you see the latter as more likely to beat Trump than the former, but don't see any ideological differences between them because they both look like Statler and Waldorf from the Muppets, you're placing perceived (and always, always inaccurate) success against the opposition over actual policies. But then, you said you preferred Biden to Bernie, "probably", as if they are somehow of the same ilk and it's a genuine head-scratcher to decide which one you like more. They aren't on the same spectrum with their agendas.
 
Does anybody have any reaction at all to the main purpose of this thread, which is to reveal that the media are already transparently lying in their reporting of Sanders? We can have a thread about his overall chances, but this one is supposed to be about the media's treatment of him.
Most of us probably don't care. We're what, almost 18 months from the actual election? So much is going to change between now and then. I like some of Bernie's platform. I don't like the way his followers handled themselves in 2016. I think because of his rabid base, which he has only made mild attempts to distance himself from, is poisonous to the DNC and the democratic process overall.

I don't actually care that much (which is not to say not at all) who wins the Dem primary, they will get my vote. It is a shitty position to be in, but the shitheel in the WH is just that bad. I actually think that if Bernie (or Biden, whom I used to like a lot more, and probably still prefer over Bernis) wins, he has less chance of beating the orange shitgibbon than most of the others, since so many people are turned off by him.

You still haven't posted any evidence that his popularity has increased "exponentially" since 2016. Based on my experience, it's been the opposite, but it probably depends on the people around me more than anything else. Got any polls to demonstrate this exponential skyrocketing?

The place to look isn't in his personal numbers, but in the acceptance of policies he forcefully advocated: Medicare for all, free higher education, student debt forgiveness, gay and trans rights, and so on. He didn't invent these, but he has always supported them. His popularity was formidable in 2016 when not all of these positions were at the forefront, and now they are becoming regular topics of conversation that all mainstream news outlets are asking of all candidates. He draws enormous crowds of supporters wherever he speaks, and raises many times more in individual small donations than the other candidates can get from corporate and financial backers.

There's also the fact that he is the current front-runner in a field of 743 candidates gunning for the nomination.

Bernie Sanders as a candidate and a person could scarcely be more different than Joe Biden. If you see the latter as more likely to beat Trump than the former, but don't see any ideological differences between them because they both look like Statler and Waldorf from the Muppets, you're placing perceived (and always, always inaccurate) success against the opposition over actual policies. But then, you said you preferred Biden to Bernie, "probably", as if they are somehow of the same ilk and it's a genuine head-scratcher to decide which one you like more. They aren't on the same spectrum with their agendas.

BTW: how is student debt forgiveness a left wing issue? College graduates average 65% more in salary than non-college educated people. If anything, this seems to me to be another transfer from working class people to the evil higher class people.
 
Trump beat HRC who clobbered Sanders. Why would anyone think Sanders has much of a chance to beat Trump?

1. His popularity in the states that gave Trump the win over Clinton

2. The fact that it's no longer 2016 and support for both Sanders and his positions have exponentially grown since then

3. Lack of comparability between the primaries and the general makes your reduction to "A beats B who beats C" overly simplistic
Perhaps, but my analysis is not driven by wishful thinking. There is no evidence that overall support for Sanders has increased, let alone exponentially increased. Hell, as soon as Sleepy Joe Biden enters the race, Sanders' supports drops significantly.
 
Trump beat HRC who clobbered Sanders. Why would anyone think Sanders has much of a chance to beat Trump?

This:
55% will definitely not vote for Trump. 28% definitely will.

They can fight over the remaining 17%, but the outcome is foregone if fair elections are held in the current sentimental climate. Even electoral college optimization probably can't overcome those kinds of numbers. Anyone on the B-team (Beto, Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Bennet) could beat him right now as could most if not all of the women in the race.
I am hoping some of Trumpy's diehard followers see the writing on the wall, and stay home. If that should happen, there's probably nothing that all Putin's horses and all Putin's men can do to put Trumpy together again.
 
They aren't on the same spectrum with their agendas.

Unless you consider their #1 agenda item.

Which is...?

HarryBosch said:
BTW: how is student debt forgiveness a left wing issue? College graduates average 65% more in salary than non-college educated people. If anything, this seems to me to be another transfer from working class people to the evil higher class people.
Because leftists understand what the word "class" means
 
ym5pgmwumaw21.png






The only mention of Bernie being Jew occurs directly before a link to an article about the income revealed on his tax returns:
Returns.JPG






Jewish Bolshevism

Jewish Bolshevism, also Judeo–Bolshevism, is an anti-communist and antisemitic canard, which alleges that the Jews were the originators of the Russian Revolution in 1917 and that they held the primary power among the Bolsheviks. Similarly, the conspiracy theory of Jewish Communism implies that Jews have dominated the Communist movements in the world, and is related to The Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory (ZOG), which asserts that Jews control world politics.[1]

In 1917, after the October revolution, the catchword was the title of the pamphlet, The Jewish Bolshevism, which featured in the racist propaganda of the anti-communist White movement forces during the Russian Civil War (1918–22). The Nazi Party in Germany and the German-American Bund in the United States propagated the anti-Semitic theory to their followers, sympathisers, and fellow travellers during the 1930s.[2][3][4][5] In Poland, "Judeo-Bolshevism", known as "Żydokomuna", was an antisemitic stereotype that was widely spread during the interwar period.[6]

The expressions "Jewish Bolshevism", "Jewish Communism", and the "ZOG" are used by the far-right as catchwords for the false assertions that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy.[7]
 
BTW: how is student debt forgiveness a left wing issue? College graduates average 65% more in salary than non-college educated people. If anything, this seems to me to be another transfer from working class people to the evil higher class people.

Because the poor and middle class are required to go deeply into debt to take advantage of a college education whereas the rich just pay for it.

What is it with you and reflexively hating any proposal that would help the poor and middle class?

The debt is crippling in multiple ways. I graduated into a recession, as did my peers. Those with debt were forced to join the workforce oftentimes taking jobs that didn't even require a degree at very low salaries, and this has stunted their future earnings significantly.

Me? I just went to went to grad school entirely on my father's dime to smoke weed and play video games for a while, graduated that at a good time, and now have lapped those people's salary in a matter of a few years, and some are no where near paying off their undergraduate loans. And to boot, they are stuck in suboptimal career paths.

I suppose they could have done the same thing I did, it would have just added another 60k to 100k to their debt. But you know those poor people just are irresponsible and don't think long term.

:rolleyes:

But yeah Harry, debt forgiveness *hurts the poor and helps the rich*.

War is peace.
 
BTW: how is student debt forgiveness a left wing issue? College graduates average 65% more in salary than non-college educated people. If anything, this seems to me to be another transfer from working class people to the evil higher class people.

Because the poor and middle class are required to go deeply into debt to take advantage of a college education whereas the rich just pay for it.

What is it with you and reflexively hating any proposal that would help the poor and middle class?

The debt is crippling in multiple ways. I graduated into a recession, as did my peers. Those with debt were forced to join the workforce oftentimes taking jobs that didn't even require a degree at very low salaries, and this has stunted their future earnings significantly.

Me? I just went to went to grad school entirely on my father's dime to smoke weed and play video games for a while, graduated that at a good time, and now have lapped those people's salary in a matter of a few years, and some are no where near paying off their undergraduate loans. And to boot, they are stuck in suboptimal career paths.

I suppose they could have done the same thing I did, it would have just added another 60k to 100k to their debt. But you know those poor people just are irresponsible and don't think long term.

:rolleyes:

But yeah Harry, debt forgiveness *hurts the poor and helps the rich*.

War is peace.

??? Wow are you sensitive here! I said that I don't view it as a left wing issue. It's an issue that primarily benefits higher wage earners. I've always valued lower costs for education. I have three kids in high school. It would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I could buy five blade runners this summer rather than two. Education primarily benefits the user and his/her family. So, I think that they should bear some costs for it. But society benefits also. So some kind of shared cost structure makes sense (subsidization, higher grants, and etc.)
 
BTW: how is student debt forgiveness a left wing issue? College graduates average 65% more in salary than non-college educated people. If anything, this seems to me to be another transfer from working class people to the evil higher class people.

Because the poor and middle class are required to go deeply into debt to take advantage of a college education whereas the rich just pay for it.

What is it with you and reflexively hating any proposal that would help the poor and middle class?

The debt is crippling in multiple ways. I graduated into a recession, as did my peers. Those with debt were forced to join the workforce oftentimes taking jobs that didn't even require a degree at very low salaries, and this has stunted their future earnings significantly.

Me? I just went to went to grad school entirely on my father's dime to smoke weed and play video games for a while, graduated that at a good time, and now have lapped those people's salary in a matter of a few years, and some are no where near paying off their undergraduate loans. And to boot, they are stuck in suboptimal career paths.

I suppose they could have done the same thing I did, it would have just added another 60k to 100k to their debt. But you know those poor people just are irresponsible and don't think long term.

:rolleyes:

But yeah Harry, debt forgiveness *hurts the poor and helps the rich*.

War is peace.

??? Wow are you sensitive here! I said that I don't view it as a left wing issue. It's an issue that primarily benefits higher wage earners. I've always valued lower costs for education. I have three kids in high school. It would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I could buy five blade runners this summer rather than two. Education primarily benefits the user and his/her family. So, I think that they should bear some costs for it. But society benefits also. So some kind of shared cost structure makes sense (subsidization, higher grants, and etc.)

The reason it's an issue that benefits higher wage earners is because it's currently so fucking expensive to go to college that only people with an existing level of financial flexibility can even make it to the point of getting a loan, which is exactly the problem that free university education is aiming to solve
 
??? Wow are you sensitive here! I said that I don't view it as a left wing issue. It's an issue that primarily benefits higher wage earners. I've always valued lower costs for education. I have three kids in high school. It would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I could buy five blade runners this summer rather than two. Education primarily benefits the user and his/her family. So, I think that they should bear some costs for it. But society benefits also. So some kind of shared cost structure makes sense (subsidization, higher grants, and etc.)

The reason it's an issue that benefits higher wage earners is because it's currently so fucking expensive to go to college that only people with an existing level of financial flexibility can even make it to the point of getting a loan, which is exactly the problem that free university education is aiming to solve

Yabut solving it will only create more of those evil "higher wage earners". We can't allow THAT, now can we? :rolleyes:
Harry might be concerned about having to flip his own burgers... which is understandable.
 
??? Wow are you sensitive here! I said that I don't view it as a left wing issue. It's an issue that primarily benefits higher wage earners. I've always valued lower costs for education. I have three kids in high school. It would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I could buy five blade runners this summer rather than two. Education primarily benefits the user and his/her family. So, I think that they should bear some costs for it. But society benefits also. So some kind of shared cost structure makes sense (subsidization, higher grants, and etc.)

The reason it's an issue that benefits higher wage earners is because it's currently so fucking expensive to go to college that only people with an existing level of financial flexibility can even make it to the point of getting a loan, which is exactly the problem that free university education is aiming to solve
ARGGTHFGKLJAF:KLJ!!!

What Harry Bosch is saying is that he is 'befuddled' as to why it isn't a more mainstream issue among liberals and conservatives, regarding college costs, because both have either gone to college... or are sending their kids to college and would both seemingly like for colleges to be more affordable.

IE, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.
 
??? Wow are you sensitive here! I said that I don't view it as a left wing issue. It's an issue that primarily benefits higher wage earners. I've always valued lower costs for education. I have three kids in high school. It would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I could buy five blade runners this summer rather than two. Education primarily benefits the user and his/her family. So, I think that they should bear some costs for it. But society benefits also. So some kind of shared cost structure makes sense (subsidization, higher grants, and etc.)

The reason it's an issue that benefits higher wage earners is because it's currently so fucking expensive to go to college that only people with an existing level of financial flexibility can even make it to the point of getting a loan, which is exactly the problem that free university education is aiming to solve
ARGGTHFGKLJAF:KLJ!!!

What Harry Bosch is saying is that he is 'befuddled' as to why it isn't a more mainstream issue among liberals and conservatives, regarding college costs, because both have either gone to college... or are sending their kids to college and would both seemingly like for colleges to be more affordable.

IE, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Agreed. Also glossed over: the fact that "high wage earners" are not the problem. The problem is the "top" 0.01 to 0.1% of greedy parasites like Trump, who suck huge quantities of end-product wealth out of the system without producing anything at all of real value.
 
??? Wow are you sensitive here! I said that I don't view it as a left wing issue. It's an issue that primarily benefits higher wage earners. I've always valued lower costs for education. I have three kids in high school. It would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I could buy five blade runners this summer rather than two. Education primarily benefits the user and his/her family. So, I think that they should bear some costs for it. But society benefits also. So some kind of shared cost structure makes sense (subsidization, higher grants, and etc.)

The reason it's an issue that benefits higher wage earners is because it's currently so fucking expensive to go to college that only people with an existing level of financial flexibility can even make it to the point of getting a loan, which is exactly the problem that free university education is aiming to solve
ARGGTHFGKLJAF:KLJ!!!

What Harry Bosch is saying is that he is 'befuddled' as to why it isn't a more mainstream issue among liberals and conservatives, regarding college costs, because both have either gone to college... or are sending their kids to college and would both seemingly like for colleges to be more affordable.

IE, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

If his mainstream version of supporting free college education is "lower costs for education so I can buy more blade runners when my kids go to high school" then he's missing the leftist angle on it entirely. It's not about giving the already comfortable more comfort. It's about opening the doors to education for everyone so that college is no longer the chainlink fence separating people from social and political mobility because their parents didn't have it. There's a world of difference between "make school/medicare/food/whatever cheaper" by some meritocratic bullshit tax credit or means-tested voucher and "guarantee everyone a baseline level of quality education, health care, and nutrition, end of sentence"

- - - Updated - - -

ARGGTHFGKLJAF:KLJ!!!

What Harry Bosch is saying is that he is 'befuddled' as to why it isn't a more mainstream issue among liberals and conservatives, regarding college costs, because both have either gone to college... or are sending their kids to college and would both seemingly like for colleges to be more affordable.

IE, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Agreed. Also glossed over: the fact that "high wage earners" are not the problem. The problem is the "top" 0.01 to 0.1% of greedy parasites like Trump, who suck huge quantities of end-product wealth out of the system without producing anything at all of real value.

Yeah but that's also all employers
 
??? Wow are you sensitive here! I said that I don't view it as a left wing issue. It's an issue that primarily benefits higher wage earners. I've always valued lower costs for education. I have three kids in high school. It would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I could buy five blade runners this summer rather than two. Education primarily benefits the user and his/her family. So, I think that they should bear some costs for it. But society benefits also. So some kind of shared cost structure makes sense (subsidization, higher grants, and etc.)

The reason it's an issue that benefits higher wage earners is because it's currently so fucking expensive to go to college that only people with an existing level of financial flexibility can even make it to the point of getting a loan, which is exactly the problem that free university education is aiming to solve
ARGGTHFGKLJAF:KLJ!!!

What Harry Bosch is saying is that he is 'befuddled' as to why it isn't a more mainstream issue among liberals and conservatives, regarding college costs, because both have either gone to college... or are sending their kids to college and would both seemingly like for colleges to be more affordable.

IE, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Because right-wingers (in that group I include mainstream liberals) fundamentally don't like the poor.
 
BTW: how is student debt forgiveness a left wing issue? College graduates average 65% more in salary than non-college educated people. If anything, this seems to me to be another transfer from working class people to the evil higher class people.

Because the poor and middle class are required to go deeply into debt to take advantage of a college education whereas the rich just pay for it.

What is it with you and reflexively hating any proposal that would help the poor and middle class?

The debt is crippling in multiple ways. I graduated into a recession, as did my peers. Those with debt were forced to join the workforce oftentimes taking jobs that didn't even require a degree at very low salaries, and this has stunted their future earnings significantly.

Me? I just went to went to grad school entirely on my father's dime to smoke weed and play video games for a while, graduated that at a good time, and now have lapped those people's salary in a matter of a few years, and some are no where near paying off their undergraduate loans. And to boot, they are stuck in suboptimal career paths.

I suppose they could have done the same thing I did, it would have just added another 60k to 100k to their debt. But you know those poor people just are irresponsible and don't think long term.

:rolleyes:

But yeah Harry, debt forgiveness *hurts the poor and helps the rich*.

War is peace.

??? Wow are you sensitive here! I said that I don't view it as a left wing issue. It's an issue that primarily benefits higher wage earners. I've always valued lower costs for education. I have three kids in high school. It would save me hundreds of thousands of dollars. I could buy five blade runners this summer rather than two. Education primarily benefits the user and his/her family. So, I think that they should bear some costs for it. But society benefits also. So some kind of shared cost structure makes sense (subsidization, higher grants, and etc.)

Because you are spewing bullshit. This is clearly a left-wing issue. Lowered debt would help the poorest people immensely more than the rich. The richest people don't even take on debt.
No, the costs of higher education should be primarily born by society at large. That is what makes it a left wing issue.

Society, as a whole suffers when the young and their parents bear the burden of these costs.
Society, as a whole, benefits the most from an educated and productive polity.


That being said, the Universities need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and address the absurd increase in cost, this coupled with the lending provided by the government is causing all of this to spiral out of control. I haven't been able to totally narrow down what is behind these rising costs, but it seems like the new legions of administrators and the fact that education, thanks to the extremist right-wing ideology in the United States, has become commodified. It's bad incentives all around, the worst of both worlds.
 
ARGGTHFGKLJAF:KLJ!!!

What Harry Bosch is saying is that he is 'befuddled' as to why it isn't a more mainstream issue among liberals and conservatives, regarding college costs, because both have either gone to college... or are sending their kids to college and would both seemingly like for colleges to be more affordable.

IE, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

If his mainstream version of supporting free college education is "lower costs for education so I can buy more blade runners when my kids go to high school" then he's missing the leftist angle on it entirely. It's not about giving the already comfortable more comfort. It's about opening the doors to education for everyone so that college is no longer the chainlink fence separating people from social and political mobility because their parents didn't have it. There's a world of difference between "make school/medicare/food/whatever cheaper" by some meritocratic bullshit tax credit or means-tested voucher and "guarantee everyone a baseline level of quality education, health care, and nutrition, end of sentence"

- - - Updated - - -

ARGGTHFGKLJAF:KLJ!!!

What Harry Bosch is saying is that he is 'befuddled' as to why it isn't a more mainstream issue among liberals and conservatives, regarding college costs, because both have either gone to college... or are sending their kids to college and would both seemingly like for colleges to be more affordable.

IE, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Agreed. Also glossed over: the fact that "high wage earners" are not the problem. The problem is the "top" 0.01 to 0.1% of greedy parasites like Trump, who suck huge quantities of end-product wealth out of the system without producing anything at all of real value.

Yeah but that's also all employers

I've been an employer for over a decade, up until this year. Never once was I considered "part of the problem" by any employee.
Employers can do quite well enough and still pay employees significantly more they would be willing to accept, at least in the arena I played in.

(I had a now-23 year old (hired at 19) with no prior experience, no degree - just great work ethic. Hired at 14.50/hr and worked her way up. Made herself valuable enough that the Company that bought ours had to keep her - now she has a great benefit package and $75k base pay, in an economy where entry level is minimum wage...)

Anyhow, my feeling is that paying people more than the "market rate" lets you find and develop good people - to the benefit of both employer and employee.
 
If his mainstream version of supporting free college education is "lower costs for education so I can buy more blade runners when my kids go to high school" then he's missing the leftist angle on it entirely. It's not about giving the already comfortable more comfort. It's about opening the doors to education for everyone so that college is no longer the chainlink fence separating people from social and political mobility because their parents didn't have it. There's a world of difference between "make school/medicare/food/whatever cheaper" by some meritocratic bullshit tax credit or means-tested voucher and "guarantee everyone a baseline level of quality education, health care, and nutrition, end of sentence"

- - - Updated - - -

ARGGTHFGKLJAF:KLJ!!!

What Harry Bosch is saying is that he is 'befuddled' as to why it isn't a more mainstream issue among liberals and conservatives, regarding college costs, because both have either gone to college... or are sending their kids to college and would both seemingly like for colleges to be more affordable.

IE, it shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Agreed. Also glossed over: the fact that "high wage earners" are not the problem. The problem is the "top" 0.01 to 0.1% of greedy parasites like Trump, who suck huge quantities of end-product wealth out of the system without producing anything at all of real value.

Yeah but that's also all employers

I've been an employer for over a decade, up until this year. Never once was I considered "part of the problem" by any employee.
Employers can do quite well enough and still pay employees significantly more they would be willing to accept, at least in the arena I played in.

(I had a now-23 year old (hired at 19) with no prior experience, no degree - just great work ethic. Hired at 14.50/hr and worked her way up. Made herself valuable enough that the Company that bought ours had to keep her - now she has a great benefit package and $75k base pay, in an economy where entry level is minimum wage...)

Anyhow, my feeling is that paying people more than the "market rate" lets you find and develop good people - to the benefit of both employer and employee.

Explains a lot
 
If his mainstream version of supporting free college education is "lower costs for education so I can buy more blade runners when my kids go to high school" then he's missing the leftist angle on it entirely. It's not about giving the already comfortable more comfort. It's about opening the doors to education for everyone so that college is no longer the chainlink fence separating people from social and political mobility because their parents didn't have it. There's a world of difference between "make school/medicare/food/whatever cheaper" by some meritocratic bullshit tax credit or means-tested voucher and "guarantee everyone a baseline level of quality education, health care, and nutrition, end of sentence"

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. Also glossed over: the fact that "high wage earners" are not the problem. The problem is the "top" 0.01 to 0.1% of greedy parasites like Trump, who suck huge quantities of end-product wealth out of the system without producing anything at all of real value.

Yeah but that's also all employers

I've been an employer for over a decade, up until this year. Never once was I considered "part of the problem" by any employee.
Employers can do quite well enough and still pay employees significantly more they would be willing to accept, at least in the arena I played in.

(I had a now-23 year old (hired at 19) with no prior experience, no degree - just great work ethic. Hired at 14.50/hr and worked her way up. Made herself valuable enough that the Company that bought ours had to keep her - now she has a great benefit package and $75k base pay, in an economy where entry level is minimum wage...)

Anyhow, my feeling is that paying people more than the "market rate" lets you find and develop good people - to the benefit of both employer and employee.

Explains a lot

Please do elaborate, unless you believe I was offering that for your edification only.
 
First of all, it's important to note that Sanders was not talking about making all colleges/universities "free" (i.e., taxpayer subsidized) since he can't do that; he was referring only to public colleges/universities, which are already subsidized by taxpayers.

We have that right now for anyone who can't afford to pay even the comparatively lower cost of tuition at public schools. There was/is nothing new in his proposal except the catchy misnomer bumper sticker slogan "free college." Which really just means reinforcing (and in some instances reinstating) Federal subsidies, but the problem with that (and why public colleges/unis started being a problem in the first place) is that it's a State issue, not necessarily a Federal one:

Many states closed revenue shortfalls after the recession and its subsequent sluggish recovery through sizeable budget cuts, as opposed to pursuing a more balanced mix of responsible and targeted cuts and revenue increases. In fact, between fiscal years 2008 and 2012, for every $1 state lawmakers raised in new revenue they cut $3 from existing spending. This led to exceedingly deep cuts to higher education — which contributed to higher-than-typical tuition increases, described above — that might have been avoided if lawmakers had pursued a more balanced approach.

For high school graduates who chose college over dim employment prospects and older workers who returned to retool and gain new skills, these cuts and tuition increases came at an especially bad time.[15] Enrollment peaked in the 2011 school year with nearly 11.7 million full-time-equivalent students even as states slashed higher education budgets.

The state funding cuts and rising tuition that followed the last recession fit into a longer-term trend in place since the 1980s. Over time, students and their families have assumed much greater responsibility for paying for public higher education. That’s because during and immediately following recessions, state and local funding for higher education tends to fall, while tuition tends to grow more quickly. During periods of economic growth, funding tends to recover somewhat, while tuition stabilizes at a higher share of total higher educational funding.[16] (See Figure 5.)

In 1988, students — through tuition — provided about a quarter of public colleges and universities’ revenue, while state and local governments provided the remaining three-quarters. Today, that split is almost 50-50.

But more importantly, that's not the problem. The problem is the amount of debt from students who went to private schools, more so than those who went to public:

The share of students graduating with debt has risen since the start of the recession. Between the 2008 and 2015 school years, the share of students graduating with debt from a public four-year institution rose from 55 percent to 59 percent. The average amount of debt incurred by a bachelor’s degree recipient with loans at a public four-year institution grew as well, to $27,000 from $21,226 (in 2016 dollars), an increase of 26 percent. By contrast, the average level of debt incurred rose only about 1 percent in the six years prior to the recession.[32]

In short, at public four-year institutions, more students are taking on larger amounts of debt. By the second quarter of 2018, student debt totaled $1.4 trillion — more than the United States population’s credit card or auto loan debt.[33]

Yet, while college loan burdens have increased significantly for students at public four-year institutions, the sizeable run-up in debt levels was driven in large part by a growing share of students attending private for-profit institutions — such as Corinthian and the University of Phoenix — and two-year community colleges. In 2000, borrowers entering repayment on student loans from for-profit and two-year institutions made up roughly 30 percent of all borrowers overall, a study from the U.S. Treasury Department and Stanford University researchers found. By 2011, that share had risen to nearly half. For-profit institutions were such a driving force that in 2014, eight of the top ten and 13 of the top 25 institutions whose students owed (collectively) the most in federal student loan debt were for-profit institutions. In 2000, only one for-profit made the top 25.[34]

According to "studentdebtrelief.us" at least, we have:

Total Remaining Student Loan Debt: 1.569 trillion
Amount Borrowed Each Year: $105.5 billion

So the real problem is the amount of outstanding debt ($1.569 Trillion), not necessarily next year's debt. Which leads to the question of:

Who Owes this Money?

Master’s Students Shoulder the Majority of Debt

Choosing to earn a Master’s degree certainly comes at a cost. Unlike doctorate students, most Master’s degree students do not have opportunities for assistantships or grants. Instead, they cover 53% of tuition costs with loans , taking out an average of $13,151 for each year of graduate school. This debt makes up 38% of the nation’s student debt load even though Master’s degree students only make up 17% of all federal student loan borrowers.

Debt Burden of Students at Private Colleges

Students attending a private college pay nearly three times as much as those attending an in-state public university. It follows then that bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate program graduates from private universities owe much more than their public college counterparts. In 2012, bachelor’s degree graduates from private universities owed an average of $32,300 while public school graduates only owed $25,550.

Newer data confirms that students at private colleges continue to borrow more federal money each year than their public school counterparts. This is especially true for students enrolled at four-year private for-profit colleges. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that the average amount of federal student loans borrowed in 2015-2016 was $6,700 at public four-year colleges, $7,200 at private non-profit four-year colleges, and $8,200 at private for-profit four-year colleges.

The trend continues when you consider private student loans as well. For the 2015 to 2016 school year, the average amount of private loans borrowed was $7,800 at public four-year colleges, $8,100 fat for-profit colleges, and $12,400 at private non-profit four-year colleges. Unlike federal loans, these private loans do not come with many of the protections offered by the federal government.

Senior Citizens Still Owe Money

Data from the New York Federal Reserve tells us that borrowers ages 39 and under have the highest total student loan balance. This makes sense since you (theoretically) pay off more debt as time goes on. However, student debt is not just a young adult issue. As of 2017, nearly 3.2 million people age 60+ are still paying off debt—three times more than were a decade ago. For this age group, the total loan balance is 85.4 billion dollars. Although it is the least amount owed by any age group, it is evidence of the lengthy burden student loans present.
...
Parents Contribute, but Students Owe More

Parents often cosign private loans for the 6% of students who take them out. They’re ultimately still responsible for the debt, but the student typically takes responsibility for paying it back. Parents also borrow an average of $17,500 in Parent PLUS loans to help cover their child’s expenses. Even with all of the parental borrowing, students still borrow more on average, but the numbers are getting closer. Sallie Mae found that in 2018, around 14% of college costs were covered by student borrowing while parent loans covered 10%. Compare that to their 2017 research that found student loans covered 19% of college costs while parent loans covered just 8%. This shows a trend towards parents assuming more and more financial responsibility for their child’s education.

So the question becomes even more complicated when we start talking about what exactly do we mean by "free college" and "debt forgiveness," which is the real problem. Congress can forgive federal loans and while that would be great, the majority of those loans are held by people who have the means to repay them. These are people (like me) who got their master's degrees, not their bachelor's. Iow, not necessarily kids.

But, it doesn't exactly make the evening news if you say, "We need to forgive middle-aged secondary degree federal debt from thirty years ago!"

And then there is the whole much deeper and perhaps more sinister problem as to why certain States may have radically changed their tuitions (hint, it has impacted minority enrollment primarily, surprise, surprise).
 
Back
Top Bottom