Upload
Login or register
x

(Not) Price Tags

Democratic presidential hopeful and Vermont Senator
Bernie Sanders just introduced a bill to make public
colleges in the , modeled after
the way many European nations handle the costs of
college by using tax money to invest in their youth -
rather than treating them as profit centers.
fii) iall
...
+893
Views: 30016
Favorited: 43
Submitted: 06/11/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to joshlol

Comments(446):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
1234>
[ 446 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
174 comments displayed.
Reply
+122
#88 - cheastnut (06/12/2015) [-]
as a white man I find these people way to expensive.
Reply
+1
#311 to #88 - improbable (06/12/2015) [-]
expensive is a place? or a state of being? if the latter, then why would you find the way for them? better they are self sufficient and productive members of society, but that contradicts the post because your goal is already to make them expensive
expensive is a place? or a state of being?
if the latter, then why would you find the way for them? better they are self sufficient and productive members of society, but that contradicts the post because your goal is already to make them expensive
Reply
+3
User avatar #350 to #311 - lordofthesea (06/12/2015) [-]
they have signs around their neck showing their debt.
cheastnut was making a joke that they're being sold for those prices.
Reply
+31
#73 - flnonymousseven ONLINE (06/11/2015) [-]
this, like many things proposed by liberals, sounds too good to be true. what's the catch?
Reply
-5
#225 to #73 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
The catch? Where does the government get its money? The tax payers, ie you.

Along with the fact it'll make degrees even less valuable. We already have over saturation in the workforce "hence why college grads can't get jobs". All this is doing is increasing what employers demand.

Why hire a BA grad when someone with a phd is willing to start the job for the same wage.


Then there is the issue of "it's a democrat". Remember how expensive "affordable" health care was supposed to be? Now they're saying rates are about to take a hike of a minimum of 35%. Never trust a politician who makes promises t get your vote. They're trying to buy you not help you.


Lastly show me one thing the government hasn't ****** up. Then tell me you trust them with teaching our youth.
Reply
+24
#244 to #225 - freshfresh (06/12/2015) [-]
I still don't see the problem. Im Danish we get free education, and yeah you need a Masters to get a job, but what's the catch in having a socioity where everyone has a good education??
eeryone has the same terms for making it, that's the point here. you don't need 50000$ to get a degree, you need hard work!
Reply
+1
User avatar #340 to #244 - veryevilmen ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
see thats a sweet idea. But Denmark has a population of 5.614 million people and New York City has a population of 8.406 million. facts shamelessly stolen from google So accept what works in such a small white country might not work in a massive country that is already terribly in debt. We all wish it would work but it just doesn't.
Reply
+3
#345 to #340 - freshfresh (06/12/2015) [-]
i see your point, but still, it's also about how you use your tax money. The education can gradualy become cheeper if you just push more of the tax money that way. It's all about prioriticing. Plus i think america should stop being affraid that higher taxese turns the contry into USSR.
Reply
+1
#382 to #345 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
Maybe if we stopped putting unnecessarily large portions of money into unnecessary military forces we could afford to educate our young, get ourselves off oil, get our young in rehabilitation from cigarettes and ... Yeah I'll just stop there cause those dreams will never come true in a government owned by Republicans.
Reply
+1
#385 to #382 - freshfresh (06/12/2015) [-]
I was going to make the point about the military too. But the problem is that it always starts a ********* , because people think that the world will end in an apocolypse if US stops being the "worlds police"
Reply
0
#388 to #385 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
I try to avoid talking politics because this website is primarily Republican in the USA it seems... And I don't like being told how wrong I supposedly am. That's why I am Anonymous, and not logged in.
Reply
-1
#431 to #244 - anon (06/13/2015) [-]
That seems like a waste of time and life.
If I can get a job as a plumber right off the bat in America but I need a master's in Denmark I'm sticking with America.
Reply
0
#443 to #431 - freshfresh (06/13/2015) [-]
well, good luck with working with other peopes **** for the rest of you life.
Reply
+3
User avatar #330 to #225 - meganinja (06/12/2015) [-]
How will it make degrees less valuable? Getting a degree should be determined by intelligence or work ethic, not wealth.
Reply
+3
#285 to #225 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
Let's play "spot the American"
Reply
+1
User avatar #366 to #225 - shrinkzz (06/12/2015) [-]
It gives poorer people a better chance at a good education. So go eat a big bag of dicks instead of complaining about your first world problems.
Reply
+3
#268 to #73 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
Scotland Does this. It works, compared to the same degree i would've got in England I have £0 debt instead of £20,000+.

It means the smartest people regardless of their background and wealth they can rise to the top, if they put the work in.
Reply
0
User avatar #362 to #268 - voltkills (06/12/2015) [-]
"it works" only because its ******* subsidized by UK taxpayers, including those from outside of scotland.
Reply
+18
#75 to #73 - galgawine (06/11/2015) [-]
Bernie sanders can say whatever he wants but he will almost certainly never become president. He self identifies as a socialist which is political suicide in the U.S. and even if he wins the popular vote with the American people it means literally nothing because its the representatives who make the final decision. I say this as a Vermonter who has always supported Bernie and would love to see him as president but hey, it's america.
Bernie sanders can say whatever he wants but he will almost certainly never become president. He self identifies as a socialist which is political suicide in the U.S. and even if he wins the popular vote with the American people it means literally nothing because its the representatives who make the final decision. I say this as a Vermonter who has always supported Bernie and would love to see him as president but hey, it's america.
Reply
+10
#146 to #75 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
the problem with socialism is our government is already hemorrhaging money while being bloated, inefficient and in some cases destructive.
Reply
+1
User avatar #177 to #75 - cheeseboyofdoom (06/12/2015) [-]
The thought of Hilliary becoming the president fills me with dread. She is nothing more than a smiley career politician, and thats exactly why she stands to win the democratic nomination.
Reply
+16
#113 to #73 - atomicjojo ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
its not free, it just gets turned into yet another tax.
Reply
+2
#347 to #113 - freshfresh (06/12/2015) [-]
yeah, but it works better through tax, then throug a loan that you'll never be able to pay off.
Reply
0
User avatar #364 to #113 - toensix (06/12/2015) [-]
Nothing wrong with that
Reply
+6
User avatar #96 - unoriginalaccount (06/12/2015) [-]
Here is Florida it's unbelievably easy to get a scholarship. Have a 3.0 GPA? Here's enough money to pay for a good portion. Have a 3.5? Here's enough to pay for like 80%. Have a 4.0 or higher? **** , with the amount of money you get you might have some left over.
I might be exaggerating a bit, A BIT, but it's mostly true.
Reply
0
#144 to #96 - cartridge (06/12/2015) [-]
It's not over-exaggerating. There was a school that would literally pay me (full tuition, room and board, etc. and a stipend for trips or other things) to go there. I think it was University of Oklahoma or something like that. Ended up going to a $50,000 a year private school that gives me $18,000 because muh name-brand education.
Reply
0
User avatar #440 to #144 - unoriginalaccount (06/13/2015) [-]
Should've gone the full paid way. This is what I don't understand the whole student loan concept
Reply
+177
User avatar #26 - lean (06/11/2015) [-]
Anyone who believes in "free" school has limited concept of the word. When the government pays for school, the government controls the curriculum. That is a rather scary thought here in the US. Have you seen what some of these morons have said???

First, if the government who already can't spend within a budget decides to make college "free", that is not going to make tuition go down. It would simply be a higher subsidy of the already heavily subsidized universities. They would raise taxes again on the American people.

Second, the definition of "degree" would have to change. There is a big difference between schooling and education, and there are a lot of BS degrees that have zero application to any reasonable job.

Third, private school systems. They have better standards than public schools and universities, typically at higher cost as well. These are elective for parents/ students. If you elect to go the private route, you would essentially be paying twice. Some parents do this for their primary school age children, but when you get to college age, the money required for both increases astronomically. Private Schools would then request A- exceptions/ tax breaks for those going, or B- government subsidies based on enrollment (again at taxpayer cost)

Fourth: government standards in schooling are a ******* joke. Take a look at common-core basic mathematics. These "standards" cripple the teacher's abilities and stress test scores over knowledge. There are already cases of teachers caught fudging scores on standard tests, because the subsidies for higher scoring averages increase (read teacher's wages).

We already have a government spending problem in the US. Creating "free" uni would exacerbate that, and the gain is undetermined. Private schooling will always be superior because it focuses on the student, not the system. On top of that, trades handle education within the unions, and that is far different than uni schooling. Should tradesman be expected to foot the bill for "free" school as well? Milton Friedman proposed an education voucher system back in the 60's that is a uniquely interesting concept. The entire structure for education (and most other systems) would need to be tore down and rebuilt block by block to support a socialized education in the US. I am not saying it shouldn't be done, I am saying that passing a bill stating "you no longer have to pay for college" is not the way to do it. Education should be seen as an individual investment for the future, not a financial burden on the populace. This bill would simply take current student debt and spread it out "fairly" amongst the roughly 100 million Americans who work in the private sector.
Reply
+1
#358 to #26 - failtotheepicpower (06/12/2015) [-]
we get it, you don't like sharing. But the thing is, having a smarter populace will benefit everyone in the long run. For ****** sake, the US is not even in the top 25 in math or science. And you can't say it isn't doable, because nearly every developed European country has significantly cheaper higher education. Yes, they pay more taxes, but they get education from it. All we get are bullets for soldiers. but seriously go look at bernie sanders' stances and funding, he is the only candidate not vastly supported by big banks and millionaires.
Reply
+1
User avatar #370 to #26 - kurbeh (06/12/2015) [-]
You don't have to raise the taxes.
If you cut the money you spend on your military in half, you could already pay for all your collegestudents.
Reply
+4
User avatar #221 to #26 - gcloud (06/12/2015) [-]
can they.. can they make it alittle cheap its breaking me..
Reply
+1
#324 to #318 - sephirothpwnz (06/12/2015) [-]
1. The curriculum issue can easily be remedied by the introduction of the educator created curriculum. Like for example in charter schools, having gone to a charter school myself (high school) I found myself greatly educated for free, the only cost maintain the grades. If you don't know charter schools, are allowed a great deal of freedom in their educational goals and procedures, that must be outlined within their charter and of course approved that they meet the standards of the U.S government. 2. Can easily be solved if we ever decide to have a balanced budget ever again, or we could crackdown on the huge outsourcing issues that major corporations are being drawn to, or we could heavily cut the military spending, (note- not the upkeep of current forces but the R&D budget which is about 70% of the current budget to my knowledge) 3. see charter schooling, as well as the fact that private schools only do marginally better than public schooling, the real factors that lead to that, are typically parents tend to send their children who are "gifted" to go there as they fell it would be a better enviroment, thus skewing the results, when controling for this, we get to pretty even results. nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf 4. agree, common core is garbage.
1. The curriculum issue can easily be remedied by the introduction of the educator created curriculum. Like for example in charter schools, having gone to a charter school myself (high school) I found myself greatly educated for free, the only cost maintain the grades. If you don't know charter schools, are allowed a great deal of freedom in their educational goals and procedures, that must be outlined within their charter and of course approved that they meet the standards of the U.S government.

2. Can easily be solved if we ever decide to have a balanced budget ever again, or we could crackdown on the huge outsourcing issues that major corporations are being drawn to, or we could heavily cut the military spending, (note- not the upkeep of current forces but the R&D budget which is about 70% of the current budget to my knowledge)

3. see charter schooling, as well as the fact that private schools only do marginally better than public schooling, the real factors that lead to that, are typically parents tend to send their children who are "gifted" to go there as they fell it would be a better enviroment, thus skewing the results, when controling for this, we get to pretty even results. nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf

4. agree, common core is garbage.
Reply
+1
#367 to #324 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
Common core is dead simple and extremely fast and easy to do in your head.
Reply
0
#259 to #26 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
"Anyone who believes in "free" school has limited concept of the word. When the government pays for school, the government controls the curriculum. That is a rather scary thought here in the US. Have you seen what some of these morons have said??? "

gee that would be horrible wouldnt it? Such as professors openly advocating SJW behaviour essentially brainwashing youth. What a terrible nightmare that would be.
Reply
0
#31 to #26 - panangga (06/11/2015) [-]
Hard to argue with any of that, you seem to be well informed, but i have to say there is no reason we cant have a subsidized higher education system alongside a private system. we have that right now for K-12. While that system isn't 100% perfect it still give people an option. while it is true that you can get jobs on just a high-school diploma it is getting harder to get ones that pay enough to live comfortably. Also there will always be people like myself that have to peruse higher education to event get into the field they want. With public and private options for higher education you have the choice of "free" collage and a decent job, or paying money going to a private school and be able to get a better job from a better education. while this does create the problem of people with money having better education and opportunities that is an entirely different argument.
Reply
+3
User avatar #38 to #31 - lean (06/11/2015) [-]
Opportunity for some people doesn't validate the increased tax burden. The education system just isn't properly structured for a government program. I am all for one, but it needs to be done properly. We should avoid doing an education version of Obamacare where some 8,000,000 people were forced to sign up or be fined, at the expense of hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Current numbers put the cost of Obamacare at about $53,000 per enrollee. I'll stick with my student loan debt thank you very much.
Reply
+2
#43 to #38 - panangga (06/11/2015) [-]
I think the exact point you are making really highlights some of the broader issues with have with the system. I am all for a restructuring of our tax system. I have no clue how one would redo our tax system, that is for someone far smarter and know more about taxes and goverment than I do. As for Obamacare many people over look the fact that it is basically identical to a republican healthcare proposal from the 90s, so it is going to favor private healthcare systems more. I am not saying it is perfect, but I do think it helps more than it hurts. I don't know if we need to fix it or redo it. I just think for now it is better than the old system or nothing at all.
Reply
+8
#53 to #43 - lean (06/11/2015) [-]
Perhaps someone with a background in economics should design it. Good luck selling that to the feds. Check out the list of federal agencies and their responsibilities, it is absurd and about 75% redundant. 4.5 million employees and counting, just federal. More than double that when you count state and county employees. They are really really bad at accomplishing much of anything.
Reply
+2
#57 to #53 - panangga (06/11/2015) [-]
Hey, I said it was likely or could ever happen. I am just saying at this point it would be really nice.
Reply
0
User avatar #176 to #31 - cheeseboyofdoom (06/12/2015) [-]
"Free" university would cause so many problems and fix very little. Firstly like you said people should not shoulder the burden of the tax increases to provide free collage. Lets say free collage ends at a bachelors degree, suddenly everyone has one and it becomes worthless, hell even now a Bachelors doesn't carry the same weight it used too. Next thing you know everyone is going for a Masters or Phd, probably taking out government sponsored loans and grants. Government interfering in the college process by way of loans and grants is one major cause of the College bubble in America.
Reply
0
User avatar #194 to #176 - wthree (06/12/2015) [-]
This is something that's happened in the UK. The Government wanted (and still wants) something like 50% of people to go to university and have a degree. Now everyone has a degree, so it's pretty much expected, and puts requirements at things like Master's and PhD's for entry level jobs.

What's more, because of a structure a whole bunch of technical colleges became universities to feast off student money, and ended up becoming **** tier universities. Then, you get a bunch of courses being artificially extended to 3 years just to count as degrees.
Reply
0
User avatar #196 to #194 - wthree (06/12/2015) [-]
Though of course, this happened because of tuition fees, not the lack of them.

Now, because tuition fees have been introduced to a high level we end up paying even more tax to cover loans that won't be paid back.
Reply
+1
#216 to #26 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
First of all, I don't think anybody is still fooled into thinking that higher education is your gateway to more affluent life. Ambition and hard work is; best example here would be self-taught programmers.

Another thing you're missing is the fact that there are so many more things to education than getting useful knowledge in job market. It actually gives you time to figure your **** out and become a better person before you become dead inside and start hating your family after coming back from work every day. Seriously, almost everybody I know looks at years spent at the university as the best time of their lives. Sure, quite a bit of them become loosers, but I would argue they were loosers all along and they would find another way to manifest it.

As someone from Europe whose life was basically saved thanks to free higher ed, I comepletely agree it's not the most pragmatically sound system out there, but it still is something we should aim at to be better/happier civilization. It's not like we have to plow our fields from 12 years of age or we starve to death anymore.
Reply
0
#269 to #216 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
if a persons best years were pre age 25 and then it all just gets worse from there

then yes i'd say they have become losers in the game of life
Reply
+7
User avatar #104 to #26 - Zaxplab (06/12/2015) [-]
1: Politicians would not be teaching, teachers would.
2: I think it could work if we actually bothered with a budget, rather than "spend as much as you want and worry about budgets at the end of the fiscal year."
3: Taxes=/= paying for someone else. We're all paying taxes here, even the poor and the people going to public school.
4: I agree with that, the government could learn from the private sector on how to educate people....
5: I only disagree here with the demonizing of increased taxes. Everybody should be able to chip in to help, even if it's not something that directly benefits you.

Maybe increased govt funding FOR the private education sector would be a good way to go?
Reply
+3
User avatar #85 to #26 - jokersaysamuseme (06/12/2015) [-]
Jesus, dat green.
Reply
+3
#122 to #26 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
Mein neger, your govt already controls yo schools with common core. GG
Reply
+3
User avatar #151 to #26 - Garblestickleshlop (06/12/2015) [-]
The school system would be fine if they would pass a law limiting the amount of administration. The reason that college is so ridiculously priced in the US is because the administration keeps growing, because the dean has to give a job to his son, daughter-in-law, sister, best friend, etc. They make up ******** titles and everyone gets an assistant and an assistant's assistant and so on so forth. They should also make limitations on the textbook pricing.
Reply
+3
User avatar #164 to #26 - iamnuff (06/12/2015) [-]
be honest, could the american school system get any worse?

If it's ****** anyway, it could atleast be ****** and free.
Reply
+3
User avatar #165 to #26 - captainrattrap (06/12/2015) [-]
The government already pretty much controls our education anyway. Free thought is extremely limited.
Reply
-3
#172 to #165 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
If you think that the gov't is the one restricting free thought around here, you're a ******* moron. Just because a populous is stupid doesn't mean its the gov't fault. Can you think of another culprit maybe?
Reply
+4
User avatar #173 to #172 - captainrattrap (06/12/2015) [-]
ppl without accounts
Reply
+3
User avatar #335 to #26 - kokkoderrisch (06/12/2015) [-]
Because **** equal opportunity.
Reply
0
User avatar #338 to #335 - lean (06/12/2015) [-]
Because **** paying the same amount for the same education
Reply
+3
User avatar #341 to #338 - kokkoderrisch (06/12/2015) [-]
>implying that makes it equal

Some people were born to parents living in complete poverty, while others are born to parents with a ******** of dough. The cycle will just continue, with the poor not able to get a decent education.
Reply
+1
#339 to #26 - lesotho (06/12/2015) [-]
You americans are afraid of public things but they can be very good. In Spain the thing with public and private universities is the other way, if you went to a private university people will think that you didn't get high enough marks to get in a public one and your daddy paid it for you.

Government here doesn't control the curriculum, they just have power on things like how many years it takes a degree, but every university is free to make their own curriculum and teachers are the ones who decide what to include in their subject.

I think you are being realistic with money and taxes, but maybe you, as a nation, should demand to your leaders a change in expenditures, maybe a reduction in military expend or whatever to finance a good public education, like every other country in Europe and many other in the rest of the world. It is posible.

Don't let them lie to you, taxes are for giving every person an opportunity in their lifes, not to maintain their asses in a good chair. Public expenditures are not the devil, it's just that things have to be done well.
Reply
-1
User avatar #342 to #339 - lean (06/12/2015) [-]
You should come see how good public things are here in America.
Reply
0
#352 to #342 - lesotho (06/12/2015) [-]
haha for sure, in every place some things work bad, but if people don't make an effort to make it better it will never be. I don't understand why every time someone propose to make a public health system or whatever, he is accused of being a communist or something like that, like... that's not the attittude. In Europe we've had public services since the 50's and nothing's wrong, we haven't become the Soviet Union or anything.

You have a big rich country with lots of good things but also you have a quite high poverty rate and educational standars which not correspond to your real level. I am sure that, taking in account that you are patriotic hard-working people, you could have the best public system in world. But you just don't want that. And I don't understand it.
Reply
+1
User avatar #296 to #26 - ubercookieboy ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
True, private education is superior, but it's also easy to take advantage of.

Either the government indoctrinates students or gives them an inferior education, or a private education institution bleeds them dry and makes them financial slaves for the best part of their lives.

But the fault is not just on the behalf of the education provider. If you have students that are not intelligent enough to complete a course they are paying through the nose for then they will lower the standards, even if it leaves everyone else unprepared for the work environment. No one is going to go for a course that prepares them for a high paying job if no one can pass it.

tl;dr - Educators are bastards and dumb, rich students ruin it for everyone
Reply
+2
#262 to #26 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
except thats a lie and youre the reason people need to go to school.
Reply
0
User avatar #334 to #262 - lean (06/12/2015) [-]
k
Reply
-15
User avatar #70 to #26 - itssakamoto (06/11/2015) [-]
If only your country didn't spend almost all of its money on the military. Cutting by 80% will still hold you No.1 biggest military budget so why overspend.
Reply
+3
User avatar #110 to #70 - dontshoot ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
lol most of the budget, may be from your tiny country... america's gpd is 50 trillion 610 billion of that goes towards military. I agree that its too high but it is a small percentage of The U.S.A' s income. I apologize for any spelling errors i'm ******* wasted right now
Reply
+1
User avatar #126 to #110 - waffies (06/12/2015) [-]
You did pretty well
Reply
+20
User avatar #71 to #70 - lean (06/11/2015) [-]
Yeah IDK something about us having troops stationed in 150 countries and the most advanced air force, navy and weapons. I agree it is too much, but why are we constantly called for aid by other countries? Maybe you guys should spend a little more and handle your own **** .
Reply
0
#218 to #71 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
This is why the UN security counsel is created so that the other members of the counsel can help, but noooo USA must maintain all control
Reply
-19
User avatar #72 to #71 - itssakamoto (06/11/2015) [-]
We got many American tanks stationed here. Why? But we didn't ask for them? Because Russia is right next to us but we did not ask for anything so why did we get tanks?
Reply
+7
User avatar #74 to #72 - lean (06/11/2015) [-]
Here:
www.whitehouse.gov/tout/contact-white-house

Couldn't tell ya, ask them. If you think the people of the US have any say in foreign policy or where troops/ military equipment is stationed, you don't understand how our country works. Lately it seems that a lot of decisions are made not only without our approval, but despite our disapproval.
Reply
+10
User avatar #81 to #74 - videogamehippey (06/11/2015) [-]
I'm just supporting you because I CAN'T READ THE OTHER PERSON'S TEXT ( itssakamoto ) BECAUSE OF THE TEXT COLOR
Reply
+2
User avatar #105 to #81 - funnychemaster ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
You have to highlight it.. but don't waste your time, it's not worth the read.
Reply
+1
#171 to #72 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
They're so you guys don't get hammer'd sickled and touching burial'd.
Reply
+1
#125 to #72 - waffies (06/12/2015) [-]
Odds are that we didn't just plop them down in your lap. Negotiations happened. Wherever you are, it's likely that either you had a standing treaty via NATO or the UN that permitted the allocation of military resources, or someone in your government said "actually, we'd rather have the tanks than not, bring em in" Not trying to start **** , I would like to have a rational discussion about this, you have piqued my curiosity. Gif is for getting attention of passerby
Odds are that we didn't just plop them down in your lap. Negotiations happened. Wherever you are, it's likely that either you had a standing treaty via NATO or the UN that permitted the allocation of military resources, or someone in your government said "actually, we'd rather have the tanks than not, bring em in"

Not trying to start **** , I would like to have a rational discussion about this, you have piqued my curiosity.

Gif is for getting attention of passerby
Reply
0
#246 to #71 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
Handle your own **** ? USA do it most of the times by their own accord, and they do so, because they have financial and political interests in that country.
Reply
+1
#255 to #70 - iworkforlaughs (06/12/2015) [-]
Your country most probably took money we offered in exchange for having troops stationed there. Basically you work for us.
Reply
+1
#170 to #70 - drcow ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
why the black text asshole
Reply
+1
#158 to #70 - paranoidweazle (06/12/2015) [-]
Not American

The US only spends 4% of their GDP on military, 5%, maybe, if they are planning on going through with a heavy war.

The US GDP is $17.7 trillion, pretty high, and can afford to have a large army.
Reply
0
User avatar #114 to #70 - fapfapaccount (06/12/2015) [-]
our military is pretty useless unfortunately there a lot of ******** cheating the system and we spend too much money buying and maintaining equipment. and it takes a lot of money out of programs that could help people who are legitimately in need inside our own borders. they decide instead to cut VA and retirement benefits, like what the ****
Reply
0
#147 to #70 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
Black text. Get the **** out.
Reply
+2
User avatar #237 to #26 - distortedflare ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
True but then you realize that many great minds come from the UK and specifically Scotland and guess what free education in Scotland.
Reply
+2
User avatar #336 to #237 - lean (06/12/2015) [-]
Many great minds find education despite the system they are brought up in. Isaac newton was born a farmer and had no education in mathematics until he was past 17 years old.
Reply
+1
User avatar #377 to #336 - distortedflare ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
Yeah and? It is not about age it is about the rights to free education. And how it can help students who get ****** by a system that actually allows people to spend 40 grand on a ******* gender degree. They don't care about education all they care about is the cash. Who the **** would allow such a useless degree to be taught. here is the thing make it free and gender studies and woman studies will vanish as they realize that it is to expensive to keep a useless degree going.



so two birds one stone.
Reply
0
#261 to #237 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
>Irn Bru, Haggis, Heroine
Great thoughts,
Reply
-7
#50 to #26 - jaminnsnoo (06/11/2015) [-]
Sure, your arguments sound good. But it's still just excuses for protecting "muh moneys". 3/4 of your arguments are just complaining about "standards". Sure they might be low, but in time they will get higher. i.e when my dad went to school they just learned some basic stuff from a common housewife. (this was when children still was supposed to work instead of studying in the U.S) Now our educationalsystem tops the charts. (Finland.) Smarter generations build even smarter generations - simple as that!


As long as there are you people complaining about "muh moneys" there will be no change in the american educationalsystems/future.



This was my first, and shall be my last comment on this post.
Reply
+10
User avatar #58 to #50 - lean (06/11/2015) [-]
Keyword you seem to be missing there : "muh"
You have no idea how large the united states is for one thing, and even less of how our socialpolitical system is structured. I don't blame you for it, I am just saying you don't understand how ****** up and inefficient anything government runs in this country. The best and brightest are not the people in charge here. We are ok with that because our constitution limits the government interference with the individual.
Look at the most expensive Ivy League and private colleges in the US: they leave their students with the most debt, yes, but 95% of graduates make double the national average salary. Public university graduates average 75% of private university graduates. Look at my comment #38 for how the US' halfassed attempt at healthcare overhaul went. We cannot do it that way, it needs total restructuring.
Reply
+2
User avatar #264 to #26 - dangler ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
By "BS degree" do you mean " ******** " or "Bachelors of Science"?
Reply
0
#363 to #26 - xexion (06/12/2015) [-]
College should be treated like highschool 2.0, since that's all state college is. 90% of classes are no different than high school; with some teachers having predilection for mandatory attendance and such, making it even more apparent.
The working world in the US as stands treats a college degree not as a guarantee of higher understanding in the field, but as a passport for if you do not have one, regardless of experience or talent, they will not even consider you.
The working world also over the years has 'standardized' moving into the work world, with a college degree for anything and everything, no matter how useless - women's studies, american studies, music therapy, dance, english literature and english in general, latin, philosophy.
So many college degrees have no reason to be -
>Some are just plain stupid like women's studies or american studies, since there are already respectable fields covering them (history and sociology in this case)
>Some aren't worth the time and effort - why specialize in a dead language?
>Some are too transient to teach - philosophy
>Some are too narrow a field for a degree - golf enterprise management
>Some teach you the idea of a field, not the profession - english literature
I went to college for three years before dropping out, I had no clear goal in life, and refuse to get a worthless degree for the sake of having one.
You say creating free uni gives the gov't too much control and that they're dumb but answer me this -
>If the stupid don't already have control over colleges, why are there 'general education' requirements?
>Why are these stupid, pointless, and redundant majors let exist?
>Why do you think that the "University of your state here" isn't already owned and controlled by the state's government?
Reply
+2
#174 to #26 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
All very fair points and I can't say you'd be wrong however this senator has many many many good ideas to deal with each of those things you just listed visit his website.
Reply
0
#316 to #26 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
1. American higher education is extremely overpriced, and the corresponding cost from public funding would be miniscule in comparison. You seem to think that European facilities don't have any standards, and that we somehow get a worse education or a worse experience, which simply isn't true. It's just that American colleges overprice every big and little thing, since education is a business there, just like everything else.

2. Again, our education is just as good, and we're not learning everything in an unkept shoebox or anything of the sort. You should obtain a better understanding of European education and public education.

3. The content mentions the needed extra taxes, which, again, would net people an economic positive, as publicly funded education costs very little for the individual, when compared with college fees. Of ourse, the taxes would feel even less if you were to take away from your national defense.
Reply
+2
#321 to #26 - dafunkad (06/12/2015) [-]
"the government controls the curriculum." sorry mate you have clearly no idea how public universitys works.

pic unrelated
Reply
-2
User avatar #333 to #321 - lean (06/12/2015) [-]
You think they wouldn't create "standards" if they payed for everyone to go to college? get real
Reply
0
User avatar #344 to #333 - dafunkad (06/12/2015) [-]
I'm not paying for my university,

it's one of the best ranked university in my country, the university decides itself what they are going to teach or not. Their aim is to give us the necessary tools for our futur job not to teach anyone anything. I'm pretty real. Also not everyone goes to university's you have to get accepted in the best university's, the one's who aren't interested, who are not motivated enough or don't have the capacity are doing something else.

Reply
+8
#154 to #26 - ssidzyik (06/12/2015) [-]
Listen you piece of **** .
Our nation could easily start having the issue of a brain drain with the problem of for profit colleges increasing tuition at a rate far greater than inflation to where it would be cheaper to move abroad and go to college than study here. The public education system here is a joke. I attended a mix of private and public primary schooling and saw the difference at an early stage. It is also a large assumption that suddenly what education comes from college level learning would suddenly take some sort of sharp turn because it is being overseen by the government. Last I checked the military is also overseen by them and they are doing very well.
Second is that you may feel like so many others that degrees are just falling from the ******* sky because an overwhelming population feel the need to go get a BS in underwater basket weaving, but that is far better than the alternative. I would personally like to feel a challenge when applying for jobs against a large market of other highly qualified applicants. With all the whining that if there is any more forces that make it tougher for businesses they will move to other countries, it's a wonder why the same isn't thought of the intellectuals.
It would be far better for our economy for it to have an increased amount of citizens in jobs that are more mentally challenging than physically. I would imagine more engineers per capita would do a **** of a lot more for the GDP than a high percentage of garbage collectors. I personally would like to live in a city where everyone is tech savvy and that there is a higher number of network engineers than construction workers. I don't see that happening when high schoolers are graduating and looking at either immediate full time employment or more schooling that isn't only going to be tough as it should be but also put them in so much ******* debt that they can't **** without whoever they took loans from try to shove bills up their asses.
Taxpayers may initially have a slightly tougher time with a little extra tax from sending students through college for free, but that will be made up with the stronger work force paying for the old crotchety faggots retirement.
Reply
+11
#152 - larknok (06/12/2015) [-]
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck

> America is the richest country in the world.
> Other countries have free healthcare and free education that is afforded by taxes.

Explain this **** .
Reply
0
User avatar #179 to #152 - cheeseboyofdoom (06/12/2015) [-]
Top 10-ish percent hold a huge majority of wealth and it only further increases as you more up the wealth brackets, for lack of a better term. **** looks like another Gilded Age.
Reply
+2
User avatar #178 to #152 - nanako (06/12/2015) [-]
it is taking root now, especially in new york and california
Reply
0
User avatar #182 to #178 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
both completely anti-fun, hmmm. whenever socialism or communism is found, no freedom for the people, ergo no guns.

The reason it has never taken root in america is because america always focused on individual freedoms rather than collective pragmatism. but now a minority of libtards that think "Marxism is the best and most infallible way of government" everyone's freedoms are relinquished to the state. I admit, Marxism is a good way of doing things on paper, but in reality and with fallible humans, it is the worst way of government.
Reply
0
#384 to #182 - larknok (06/12/2015) [-]
You're correct that historically socialism is more or less equivalent to dictatorial communism. However, when people in america say "socialist" today, they're overwhelmingly referring to the Democratic Socialism you find in the Scandinavian countries today.

They are:

1) Democratic states what hold regular elections (unlike communist countries)
2) the Happiest places on Earth
3) Consider free healthcare a human right
4) Overwhelmingly have a capitalist economy
5) Offer free tuition and have begun the process of removing standardized tests from their curriculum because they are deemed unfit for the modern era.
6) Places where an enormous amount of rights are constantly defended.
7) There are extremely low poverty and crime rates.
Reply
0
User avatar #386 to #384 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
one word, taxes. America hates taxes, that's why america is incompatable with socialism (or Scandinavian socialism for that matter)
Reply
0
#389 to #386 - larknok (06/12/2015) [-]
Bernie Sanders would increase taxes on the wealthiest 200,000 to 300,000 people (0.1% of the population) in America, and probably decrease the taxes on the middle class and turn a profit.

We're so used to "taxes" referring to a burden the middle class must carry alone, that we forget that the top tenth of the top 1% owns almost as much as the bottom 90% (all of the poor, all of the middle class, and all of the upper-middle class of America.)

The top 16,000 families in America own as much as the bottom 200,000,000 people in America.
Reply
0
User avatar #394 to #389 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
In order for subsidized education to work, all classes have to be taxed, including the poor. Why should a poor family not able to feed themselves be forced to pay for other people's college? if someone wants to help out a college bound student they should be able to, but forcing someone to pay is both unethical and damaging to our economy. Plus another issue with subsidized education is that rich people also benefit from it, because the poor and middle classes also pay their taxes, which in turn pay for rich people's tuition when they don't need it.
Reply
0
#420 to #394 - larknok (06/12/2015) [-]
If you honestly think subsidized education is unfairly designed to help the rich and hurt the poor, you're completely confused.

If Bernie Sanders had his way, the great majority of taxes would come from those who could afford to be taxed: the extremely wealthy. Very, very few taxes would be taken from people barely making ends meet. -- and that's okay. The tiniest bit of revenue comes from the poor. We just don't need it to pay for things like subsidized education. All we have to do to afford that is cut defense spending (let's face it, our budget could be half of what it is and it would still be the largest in the world by a long shot,) and increase taxes on the rich.

As for who benefits the most from subsidized education? Overwhelmingly the poor and middle class. There's nothing theoretically more apt to function as a tool for social and economic mobility than FREE education -- which is what it would be to poor people whose taxes would not increase to pay for subsidized education.

Basically this:

If you tax the rich disproportionately more than the middle class and poor (they can afford it) in order to pay for subsidized education,

1) The extremely rich pay hundreds if not thousands of times over for whatever they receive back from admitting their children to universities for free.

2) The rich pay dozens of times over for whatever they receive back from admitting their children to universities for free.

3) The affluent pay about the same they do now to admit their children to universities for free.

4) The middle class pays far less than they do now to admit their children to universities for free.

5) The poor basically get to go to university for free.
Reply
0
User avatar #421 to #420 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
if you begin to tax the extremely rich, they can just leave the country, what's stopping them from moving to Switzerland or any other country that treat's it's rich well? It happened during the october revolution, it happened during the french revolution. If a rich person even senses trouble afoot they gtfo. when the rich leave where will the money for wealth redistribution subsidies come from? from the poor and middle classes that can't leave the country.
Reply
0
#422 to #421 - larknok (06/12/2015) [-]
This is often a worry brought up. But the fact are: You *can* tax businesses quite a bit in America before they choose to move. The reason you can do so in America is because we have an incredibly educated and talented specialist workforce that you just won't find in Asian countries. Moreover, much of their infrastructure already exists in America and they just can't afford to abandon it and try to restart somewhere else.

Another problem is that there actually aren't that many places in the world companies can move to that are better than America. If heavier taxes were levied against the rich, you would have to levy EXTREMELY heavy taxes on them before it starts to look better to move than to stay.

If you want proof of capitalism and free education in practice -- look no further than companies that have their headquarters in Germany or *any* of the Nordic nations. All these nations offer free education, and all of these countries have excellent economies.
Reply
0
User avatar #423 to #422 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
Germany is a heavily bureaucratized nation, and their education is quite messed up look up how their children are put in different high schools based on their childhood test scores , but if we keep taxing the rich then we do risk a exodus of wealth from the country. Plus the wealthy have most of the power within the US, and I think some of them deserve it, if they worked hard to get that million or billion then they should keep it. Like if you made a thousand dollars per paycheck by working hard at it then you should keep it, if you want to help people out, that's your prerogative, it's your money you have the right to do with it what you want.

But if I don't want to help people out, I shouldn't be forced to hand my money out to people if I don't want to. And if I want to be a real dick about it, I shouldn't have to give my money to hospitals or infrastucture (even though that's really ******* stupid), but if I want to then I should. If we allowed voluntary payment, rather than taxes I would be fine with that, and if there was a choice for helping people with tuition or funding infrastructure I would check that box.

Reply
0
#427 to #423 - larknok (06/12/2015) [-]
-- But it's also their prerogative to give back to the community that enables them to make so much money. Money doesn't poof into existence because someone works hard. They've generated it because of the systems in place, and the thousands of hard-working Americans that work for their companies.

Listen, I'm all for income inequality. The question is how much income inequality? And it's just plain and simple fact that America has too much. The rich are taxed at lower rates than the middle class. That's ****** . Don't act like it isn't.
Reply
0
User avatar #368 to #182 - toensix (06/12/2015) [-]
You're making of the biggest mistakes surounding socialism: It's not that black and white.

Yeah, your right, socialism and communism don't work(for a nation-state). But elements of it can make a society better. That doesn't mean suddenly there's no property and everyone becomes a rooskie
Reply
0
#359 to #182 - jdizzleoffthehizzl (06/12/2015) [-]
Oh **** off, yet another senseless California hater
Reply
0
User avatar #294 to #182 - greyhoundfd ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
Marxism is a form of economic policy, not a social policy. Libtards are libtards, communists are communists, and sometimes they overlap, but they are not the same. I, for one, am a socialist who believes thoroughly that people have a right to bear arms and say whatever they damn well please wherever the hell they want. The simple fact is that investing in cheaper healthcare, cheaper education, and a stronger society benefits everyone. You may not realize it, but good, cheap healthcare improves the health of a country as a whole. Good, cheap education creates more workers of a higher quality which benefits the entire country. A stronger society with more investment in the arts and in its citizens increases economic and cultural advancements and strength.

The key to this is realizing that while libtards support some communist principles, there is one key difference: Mainline Communists support communism because they believe it helps people and society. Libtards support communism because they believe it means that they'll get more money out of it. It's the difference between a zealous believer and a bitter poor person.
Reply
+3
User avatar #197 to #152 - wthree (06/12/2015) [-]
The Cold War, and American Propaganda.

The propaganda used by America during the cold war was extremely effective, which is why Americans associate anything with socialism and kindness as evil, in the same way Europeans associate anything with fascism as evil.
Reply
+5
#208 - thechosentroll (06/12/2015) [-]
I'd love to, but I'm already european. University's not free, but it's cheap enough to pay off while working minimal wage.
Reply
0
User avatar #222 to #208 - mentlgen ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
Planning to make use of the international school system in Finland and make my way from there, though I'm not sure if they'll **** me over for not doing specific math and science.
Reply
+1
User avatar #219 to #208 - ruebezahl (06/12/2015) [-]
I live in Germany, and it's not completely free here either, as you have to pay some "semester fees" at most universities, though in many cities, that fee now includes free public transportation.

The better part here is that the state gives you a kind of no-interest student loan, and depending on your performance and whether you can pay it off early, you only have to pay back a part of it. I had paid off my whole debt less than two years after I graduated.
Reply
+16
#79 - anon (06/11/2015) [-]
I worked my way through college. It's not that hard. I even found the time to stop in the middle and help fight a war.
I worked my way through college. It's not that hard. I even found the time to stop in the middle and help fight a war.
Reply
+9
User avatar #124 to #79 - failtolawl (06/12/2015) [-]
You say that like fighting a war and, getting paid government salary, and getting free college, all more than the cost of college, means something.
Reply
+17
#159 to #79 - larknok (06/12/2015) [-]
I'll never understand why human beings love to impart their own past sufferings onto other people.

>Gets bullied.
>Bullies.

>Was beaten as a kid.
>Beats kids.

>Is required to needlessly have several jobs just to barely get by and attend uni.
>Wants young people to do the same.

Sometimes we're so surrounded by suffering that it's all that we know.

We can change that.
Reply
-4
#226 to #159 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
I don't understand why humans suddenly need someone to solve their problems for them instead of growing a ******* pair and solving them themselves.
Reply
+2
User avatar #289 to #226 - greyhoundfd ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
The goal of human civilization is not to make everyone suffer because that would be "fair", it's the advance our own position. We can't do that by making people be overstressed and in poverty simply for the sake of making them know our life experiences. Our life experiences are just that: OURS. That doesn't mean that other people have to go through them.
Reply
0
User avatar #373 to #159 - kietzu (06/12/2015) [-]
This is called negative social inheritance.

Basically, you get treated like **** , you treat your kids like **** .
I don't know how much the entire world is really interested in this **** , as the only thing I can find about it points back to almost only northern European research.
Reply
+19
#78 - anon (06/11/2015) [-]
"Free"
"Free"
Reply
+5
#306 to #78 - newdevyx (06/12/2015) [-]
We already know it's not free, it'd be funded with tax money.
Reply
+6
User avatar #112 - drl (06/12/2015) [-]
works well for small nations
however most of our states are bigger then those nations and have bigger populations
it costs way more
you cant just have 1 system that works for every nation
because there are other deciding factors
Reply
-2
User avatar #115 to #112 - charredenay (06/12/2015) [-]
It might work if we stopped giving out free rides for football players at every state university.
Reply
+2
#119 to #115 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
free rides? oh how innocent you are. these kids are slave labor that makes some universities millions. a lot of them get injured, drop out and are ****** for life.
Reply
-2
User avatar #121 to #119 - charredenay (06/12/2015) [-]
They would stop getting injured if we stopped putting sporting events over academic achievement.
If there were no more football scholarships potential students wouldn't bother injuring themselves to get them.
Being condescending doesn't make you correct, just for future reference.
Reply
0
#132 to #121 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
again, millions they could cover there own students from the money they make from sports. greedy ***** .
Reply
-1
User avatar #140 to #132 - charredenay (06/12/2015) [-]
Which is my point. "College Football" should not be a thing, since the profits from sporting events rarely finds its way into any other department. Government should pull government funding from any state universities that offer scholarships for college football.
0
#181 to #140 - charredenay has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
0
#130 to #112 - slyblade ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
Not saying it fixes everything but larger population means more tax, means more money towards free university degrees.
Reply
0
#138 to #130 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
Except we have to fix our debt first.
Reply
0
#235 to #130 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
You realize 90m Americans are on some sort of government assistance right? Don't get me started on the workforce participation rate.

The problem is the jobs aren't there to support the population. If we focus on cutting government spending and increasing economic growth. You could pay for your own college and not tax the **** out of everyone else
Reply
+2
#191 to #112 - Azz (06/12/2015) [-]
Two words: academic requirements. You don't pass a basic summary of high school entrance exam? No college education. If you didn't want to prepare for your future at one of the most basic levels, why would anyone expect you to do anything in college but party?
Reply
+5
User avatar #106 - hazmathank (06/12/2015) [-]
he also believes in a 90% tax rate across the board wether you make a dollar a year or a billion dollars a year. **** him
Reply
+1
#348 to #106 - failtotheepicpower (06/12/2015) [-]
citation needed. He's one of the only candidates not funded by big banks and millionaires. So unless you make 7 figures, chances are you might like him if you really understood what he has proposed. also, taxes were over 90% when Ike was president, and he was a republican
Reply
+2
#161 - apllo ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
Reply
+2
#120 - rundas ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
I am completely disgusted at all the support Bernie Sanders is getting from mainstream Democrats. I guess that's just them showing their true colors. Socialism is anathema to a lawful constitutional limited government.
Reply
-2
#157 to #120 - larknok (06/12/2015) [-]
Ah yes, **** 80-90% voter turn-out!

**** governments that prioritize healthcare and education over the defense budget!

**** generating millions of infrastructure GOVERNMENT jobs!

Stupid lib-rawls tryin' to get me to pay! I worked seven jobs to make it through the better economy of yester-year in college, and am so overwhelmingly proud of my overcoming a needless suffering that I would like to impart that suffering onto others!

**** the fact that democratic socialist countries are overwhelmingly rated the happiest places on Earth!

**** Democratic Socialism!
Reply
+1
User avatar #188 to #157 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
You sir have never looked outside your idealist bubble, and realized that in order to provide those benefits, the people pay more taxes, look at Denmark, they have all those safety nets, but they pay the highest income tax in the world at 50%, that means if you work at a minimum wage job you're not even making ends meet. but at 50% you're going to have to rely on the state for 75% of you're money, well that 75% comes from other people's jobs, which makes your "fair" government "unfair". Because while you can't go out and find a better paying job you're taking money away from people that actually looked for a job that paid well.

Also, don't get me ******* started on these libfags destroying the rights of the people.

Lastly, what works for democrat socialist countries, most certainly won't work with the US. What works for Russia, doesn't work for the US. What works for England doesn't work for the US. What works for Germany doesn't work for the US. No one government works for every country, and their people's ideals. America loves freedom/liberty. I love my freedom/liberty. I don't want my hard work to pay for Jamal's laziness.
Reply
+1
User avatar #202 to #188 - wthree (06/12/2015) [-]
You are willing to sacrifice a better functioning society on principle.
Reply
-1
User avatar #209 to #202 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
we already have a functioning society, there's no need to make it "better"
Reply
+2
User avatar #210 to #209 - wthree (06/12/2015) [-]
'me already have cave, why me need house with fire and wall?"
Reply
-1
User avatar #212 to #210 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
making a society better only makes it better for a certain type of person, the person who won't get out and find a job. you're society is worse for people who actually work for a living and not living on handouts.

You're society is based on the principle that laziness is rewarded while hard working people are screwed over with taxes. I know, because when I get a pay check and see how much I earned before taxes next to how much I actually earned makes me angry. I worked hard for that money, and that money should be mine not some ****** who stays at home all day fapping and playing video games.
Reply
+1
User avatar #215 to #212 - wthree (06/12/2015) [-]
This is exactly what I mean. The better society I'm talking about benefits everyone, with improvied infustrcture, better schools, hospitals, etc. which are available to all. The whole population becomes better educated and more skilled and improves the standard of living for everyone, and this can be seen across the board in multiple countries.

But you want to throw this all away because a few outliers abuse the system. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said you would throw away a better society on principle.
Reply
0
User avatar #217 to #215 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
No, you're not. and those "few outliers" cost the government billions and billions of dollars. Instead of adding new safety nets, we need to fix the ones we already have. make it harder to get unemployment benefits, make benefits only last for a certain amount of time, have people be audited in the suspicion that they're abusing the system, and infrastructure and schools, and et al, are not the same things as unemployment. I have no problem with infrastructure and et al, that benefits everybody not just a few.

I agree that college should be subsidised, like what was in the past, before Raygun ****** **** up.

Lastly principle is paramount in order to have a better society, what else would a society be based on? Anarchy?
Reply
0
User avatar #214 to #212 - hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-]
*Your
Reply
+4
#101 - barstoolninja ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
**** that, no way in hell I'm paying extra taxes so some ******** can drop out.
Reply
+2
#190 - economicfreedom (06/12/2015) [-]
I think I hate this guy more than Hillary Clinton. tax the poor to send the rich to college.... that's his plan allow a nobel prize winning economist explain it to you www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3-_r_t7AZU&ab_channel=LibertyPen
I think I hate this guy more than Hillary Clinton.

tax the poor to send the rich to college.... that's his plan

allow a nobel prize winning economist explain it to you
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3-_r_t7AZU&ab_channel=LibertyPen
Reply
+2
#163 - facepalmftw (06/12/2015) [-]
This country is legitimately running out of pilots, truck drivers, oil field workers, and other blue-collar jobs. Why should we push up taxes AGAIN and get more history, business, and women's studies majors out of it?
Reply
-2
#195 to #163 - sacrilegious (06/12/2015) [-]
Doesn't everyone deserve a chance to aspire to something more than being a truck driver? Just because you're poor doesn't mean you don't deserve an opportunity to better yourself.
Reply
0
User avatar #200 to #195 - economicfreedom (06/12/2015) [-]
loans exist, you dumb **** .
you don't have to pay right away, that's the point of loans.
You can get a degree, get a decent income, then pay it back later.
there's no reason why the person who benefits from the degree shouldn't be the one who pays for it

everyone has the chance to do that
Reply
-1
#201 to #200 - sacrilegious (06/12/2015) [-]
But doesn't everyone benefit from having a more educated populace?
Reply
-1
#231 to #201 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
No because.

A) some people have no business going to college.

B) do you want your taxes increased so some ******* can take art or women's studies? These are degrees with no job market.

C) remember the incredibles? If everybody is super nobody is. Applies here. BA becomes the new high school grad then everyone will want master's.

Reply
0
User avatar #203 to #201 - economicfreedom (06/12/2015) [-]
not nearly to the extent that it justifies taxes paying for tuition.

the person who gets the degree will always be the one who benefits the most
Reply
0
#425 to #195 - facepalmftw (06/12/2015) [-]
The world needs more truck drivers than it does philosophers, mate. Everyone can aspire to greater things, but only a few can really get there. That's just the way the world works: nobody wants to work at McDonald's, but everyone wants to eat there.
Reply
+2
#149 - entername (06/12/2015) [-]
Bernie Sanders or Elisabeth Warren is the best thing that could happen to your failing country
...but you idiots will probably elect another Bush or Clinton because you recognize the name and couldn't give a **** about their acctual intent or policy..
Reply
-1
#187 to #149 - Azz (06/12/2015) [-]
Went through uni applying for at least a hundred scholarships. I paid about $11k out of pocket for a 4 year degree.

If I, a white male with no specific scholarship pool for me, could do it, why can't all the minorities with hundreds, if not thousands, of scholarships with "minority" as a criteria?

If these people are too stupid to apply for scholarships, many of which only require you to fill out a ******* basic form, what else would you expect but another recognizable name?

Reply
0
User avatar #167 to #149 - craftyatom ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
Actually, electing a Clinton this year would be a combination of name recognition and 'fighting the patriarchy', but I agree with you.
Reply
0
User avatar #180 to #149 - technoshaman (06/12/2015) [-]
As much as I love this country, yeah, we're getting screwed because people care more about brand recognition than actual issues. At this point I'd take just about any 3rd party candidate over a Democrat or Republican. But Bernie Sanders might not be bad for the time being.
Reply
+1
User avatar #230 - herecomesjohnny (06/12/2015) [-]
that's cool but in Europe college isn't completely free.

I still pay about 400 euros a year for student social security.
Reply
+1
User avatar #233 to #230 - jokexplain ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
We pay that much for the books we have to buy for the courses we are already paying for.
Reply
0
User avatar #236 to #233 - herecomesjohnny (06/12/2015) [-]
That doesn't sound reasonable. Usually over here it's frowned upon to make book buying a lucrative business. That's why there are student discounts up to 50%. Still though, a Civil Code can go up to 25 euros which is dubious.

What's hilarious is one time a professor sold his manual during a lecture and justified in a powerpoint that he made virtually no money out of it. Talk about polar opposites.
Reply
0
User avatar #238 to #236 - jokexplain ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
If you're in a highly specialized course, like medicine or law, your books can go up into the thousands of dollars.
Reply
0
User avatar #239 to #238 - herecomesjohnny (06/12/2015) [-]
really? I study law and even if people paid full price (which you can if you're stupid), it's still just one manual per class. Two tops.

3 if you're a huge nerd. But then you get bullied by the sports law masters. Hah, law joke.
Reply
0
User avatar #240 to #239 - jokexplain ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
The amount of books is the same

the price of the books are in the hundreds for each book
Reply
0
#265 to #240 - anon (06/12/2015) [-]
i can agree, first studied medicine in my mother language, and than continued in english, bookprices changed from 70€ to 200€
Reply
+1
User avatar #198 - tzukaza (06/12/2015) [-]
orrrr, inspire students to keep studying by rewarding them with some money each month that they will never have to pay back, works here anyway
Reply
+1
#192 - kmichel (06/12/2015) [-]
Playing devil's advocate, I could see this resulting in a greater number of liberal arts degrees given to people who chose the sciences strictly due to financial reasons. Since a large chunk of a university's endowment comes from tuition, the government will have to pick up the slack. I added the totals, and the total endowment of major universities in the US is just shy of $1 trillion.
Reply
+1
#166 - craftyatom ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-]
I feel like this is an issue on a scale much larger than he'll be able to handle - and he's running for president.

I fully support free post-secondary education, I just think it's going to be one hell of an undertaking. Go ahead, replace tuition costs with tax money. Problem is, if colleges don't get as much money as they want, they'll complain and begin cutting things, but if they do get as much money as they want then you'll add a massive amount to our tax needs - back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest 492 billion dollars. By comparison, military spending in 2015 (which makes up 54% of discretionary government spending) will end at around 600 billion. Sources: nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98 nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76 www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/

Is it possible? Probably. The statistics I've compiled don't account for profit-mongering, modern business practice, etc. But I think it might be a bit more than this one guy can pull off.

Also, props on finding something to try and win over the far left with when running against Hillary - personally I think his stance is amazing, but I doubt it'll get him through the primaries, at least this year.
Reply
+1
#185 to #166 - Azz (06/12/2015) [-]
With the fed gov's introduction of federal loans, college/uni massively inflated their prices for a money grab. Highly doubt the federal gov would pay the current tuition in full. It'd probably just be a half.

Medicare, for example (if I recall correctly), pays 28% of hospital bills because hospitals inflate their prices as well.

Imo, taking 30-40% of 492 billion is what the actual cost would be.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
Reply
0
#186 to #185 - Azz (06/12/2015) [-]
"half" should have been fraction. Sorry.
1234>
[ 446 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)