Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump Voter Scolds Bernie Sanders, Calls Free College 'So Absurd'" video.

  1. Very easy. We lack professors, TAs, tutors, doctors, nurses, surgeons, researchers and other skilled workers in the field. How do you provide those services if no one is there to provide it?
    9
  2. MrInuhanyou123 And other countries are facing problems as well or have restrictions.  For example, in other countries they track you as a student and determine if you are college material or not limiting how many people can go to college.  
    5
  3. MrInuhanyou123 I have never seen Kyle debate anyone.  But the fact that he made up that childish excuse to refuse to debate Crowder reveals his true colors. I can very easily say Kyle is anti-science, is an economic illiterate, and has an immature attitude on several issues, all of which are true.  But that would not be a reason to not debate someone.  You debate someone to try to spread information to others and try to change someone's mind. Seems like Kyle is scared.  
    3
  4. They Have A Cavetroll A lot of people do not go to college.  If you make it "free" more will go.  For example, a lot of university workers are able to go to college for free.  They get a degree on the side.  Typically not a high demanding one but will get a business degree just for fun.  At that point you are increasing demand.  
    3
  5. I am a moderate and Bernie is as dumb as it gets.
    3
  6. Only you are responsible for being educated. There are plenty of sources online to learn new information. The fact you feel you need the government to educate you shows you are beyond being educated at this point.
    3
  7. Jency Victor We spend less than 20% of our federal budget on defense.  Most education spending is at the state and local level.  That is because the states cannot raise and fund a military.  And the states are the ones that run and fund K-12 education. So yes, we spend more, in terms of percent GDP, on education then we do on the military.  
    3
  8. Zach, other countries provide "free college" with a lot of restrictions that prevent a lot of people from attending. If they can't meet the strict requirements they go to a trade school or the US where we have low standards in accepting students. Bernie's "free college"plan is absurd as it does ignore several factors.
    3
  9. MrInuhanyou123 Really?  Kyle is about as ignorant as it gets.  Watching both Crowder and Kyle I see Kyle as the one who will just name call the entire time.  Kyle has constantly misinterpret what little facts he has. In the end a debate between Kyle and Crowder will be pointless as Crowder runs an entertainment show and Kyle is just stupid.  Crowder is there it entertain, Kyle is there to talk to the masses of idiot regressive liberals.  Kyle debating Stefan Molyneux will be better as Stefan will destroy Kyle . 
    2
  10. Krunchy The Clown I agree.  Crowder provides more sources for you to at least look at.  Stefan does as well and even said you should question his sources.  Kyle does not do that.  He cites some poll where the polls said Trump was going to lose.
    2
  11. Kolzi Doesn't matter.  Several polls said Trump would lose.  That did not happen.  Anyway, the polls he cites are vague in the questioning.
    2
  12. I think we need to address how are we going to provide it. We lack professors, tutors, TAs and other skilled workers to actually provide the education. We can put a warm body in front of the class, but then the quality drops. Tell me, how do we provide education at that point.
    2
  13. That is the issue. Other countries may have free college, but they are inferior compared to the US. Even in the lame university I attend I still have a lot of opportunities.
    2
  14. There's Bernie promising free shit again and calling it a right. Bernie, the people have spoken. You lost. Go away with your economic illiteracy to your third home.
    2
  15. I don't get Bernie supporters. Do they ever think for themselves?
    2
  16. Fiend for Memes Germany tracks their students where not everyone is allowed to go to college. That is how they do it.  Also, you are ignoring the fact that 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.  
    2
  17. ParadoxGambit Take an economics course.  His policies won't work because he can't provide them.  Also, most government programs are ran and funded at the state and local level.
    2
  18. ***** STEM fields are challenging to comprehend, especially the physical sciences and you consider how K-12 is taught.  I teach physics and my students struggle because they do not think like they should to excel in the course.  Guidance is needed to point them in the right direction. If you are a creative writer you can read a lot and then write something.  You really do not need to be taught how to be creative.   
    2
  19. For as much as liberals complain about the federal government being corrupt it is kind of amazing why they want it to run our healthcare and education.
    2
  20. What "real liberals"? If Bernie is all you haven than I suggest you stop giving the federal government so much control of your life.
    2
  21. Zach Stirk You named 5.  How many members of congress are there?  Five is not going to cut it.  Also, Warren is a nut that endorsed Clinton over Bernie.  So I will remove her off the list. "not someone who wants to make a career out of politics" That is the definition of Bernie right there.
    2
  22. Why not Zach? The fact is that maybe, at best a handful of politicians are "for the people". Even at that I question that as Warren is very political in what she says. So how you are going to combat against the other politicians with so little for support? Remember that people also thought Obama was for the people as well.
    2
  23. K-12 education is mainly funded by the state and local governments. Around 3/4 of our roads is funded by the state and local government. Also, a lot of road funding does come in gas tax. So you are comparing apples and oranges. It also begs the question, if K-12 is not enough, why do we need more government in education?
    2
  24. Public schools are funded and ran by the state and local level.
    2
  25. Neb Shake Most federal funding in K-12 schools goes to Title I schools, that's pretty much it.  There is a big difference as in the smaller government is the less bureaucracy there is and less waste. Every school deals with different issues thus they manage them as they seem fit.  At the federal level you are creating a one size fits all policy that will hurt several smaller schools.  The issue is too complex to really deal with it at a one size fits all policy.  
    2
  26. Public schools, parks, and libraries are all ran and funded at the state and local level. SS is losing money. Even under Bernie's plan it will run out in 2065, right at the time first time voters who most likely supported Bernie will retire. So basically they are supporting higher taxes and won't get anything from them.
    2
  27. ultru https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Read that book. It shows that the for profit system in the US is not worse than what other countries have.  Also, for profit does not necessarily mean private.  There is plenty of government involvement in healthcare in our country. 
    2
  28. It will lower the quality of education. Also, you do not need the government to be educated.
    2
  29. The whole concept of teaching creationism in the science classroom only exists in public schools, hardly ever private. If you use tax payers' dollars to fund college then people will want to teach creationism in the science classroom of colleges. The government will set the curriculum and just add layers of bureaucracy. That is not how we improve things but somehow Bernie and his supporters feel that is a way.
    1
  30. True, Bernie is a buffoon.
    1
  31. MrInuhanyou123 Not really.  All Bernie does is promise to give away other people's money.  Anyone can do that.  Also, he complains about how corrupt the federal government is.  Meanwhile he wants that same government to run you healthcare, college, and money with higher taxes.  That is like complaining about how abusive your boyfriend is but then marrying them.  As if that is going to help.
    1
  32. People can go on youtube and watch MIT videos and Khan Academy to learn a lot of information. You can also buy cheap, used textbooks as well. Bernie wants free education as a right, fine. Offer online textbooks and more videos. That would be free and will not lower the quality of a degree.
    1
  33. Really? How about you read an economic books and work for a living. Then you will see who Bernie is a nut.
    1
  34. Obama was supposed to be the savior. What makes you think Sanders is no different?
    1
  35. WhooFlungPoo What record?  Being a career politician?   
    1
  36. Other countries have restrictions on who is allowed to go to college. Bernie is calling a right for all people. In other countries not everyone has that "right".
    1
  37. You also have to take into account the NCAA when discussing college and other countries. No other country has a program like the NCAA attached to it. How do you account for that?
    1
  38. Kyle would lose. There is a reason he does not allow anyone to call his show.
    1
  39. Red Hood I find that funny considering how all Kyle did was name call.  Also, Crowder has said climate change is real.  I wonder is Kyle will debate me.  A man who is earning his PhD in physical chemistry and disagrees with pretty most of what he says. I doubt it because I guess it is a lot of work to spew the same bullcrap online day in and day out.  
    1
  40. Zachary Calanté That is not an excuse.  Kyle is only good at name calling.  He has no facts on his side most of the time, and the ones he has he misinterprets.   
    1
  41. Zachary Calanté I do watch his show.  I agree with some of what he says.  Not all.  I like his videos on guns.  The best was on the "common sense" laws one.  Or how he called out Cenk on the 2nd amendment.  He isn't right all the time, but he is better than Kyle. At least Crowder provides his sources for his claims.   
    1
  42. MrInuhanyou123 Kyle is anti-science.  He constantly misrepresents what scientists are actually saying about climate change. He is an economic illiterate.  He said the min. wage should be $22/hr based on overall productivity.  He is immature with his constant antics. 
    1
  43. CDM_Enigma I agree, but not much. 
    1
  44. Kolzi Kyle supports Bernie who does not even understand what collateral is. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/26/bernie-sanders-mercilessly-mocked-for-posting-economically-illiterate-tweet/ Also, Kyle thinks the min. wage should be $22/hr.  Molyneux has said to question his sources.  He offers the sources but even says to question them. 
    1
  45. Terry Tater You can't tie the min. wage to inflation.  Doing so is saying that everything inflates which is not true.  Also, if you were to tie the min. wage to inflation it would be around $4/hr.  Kyle cherry picks the year 1968.  Productivity has gone up because of technology and people developing skills.  That does not mean that the min. wage worker is more productive.  As seen in unit labor cost low wage jobs such as the food industry have not increased that much in productivity but has seen their wages outpace productivity.  Comparing overall productivity to the lowest productive workers is pulling wool over peoples' eyes or being ignorant.  I did a simple model early of two workers first producing $5/hr a piece and then 20 years later one producing $7/hr and another producing $33/hr.  On average the productivity between them is $20/hr.  That is because one person is much more productive. You also have to consider that with increased productivity goods and services become better and cheaper. A brick cell phone cost in the late 80s, when adjusted for inflation, around $4000.  Smart phones today are much cheaper and have more computing power than what put a man on the moon. The idea that we only have to raise prices a small amount for a $15/hr min. wage is also asinine.  If that is all it took with no loss in demand then why not raises prices already and earn that much more in profits?  The reality is that it isn't that simple. There are other actions they can take which mainly involves cutting hours.  The min. wage is how much you have to pay per hour, not per week.
    1
  46. Terry Tater Ok, on McDonalds, you do know there are several other businesses out there besides McDonalds, right?  Also, if all it took was a small increase in price, why not increase prices that much now and make that much more in profit?  But in the end you are taking a complex economy and limiting to one business, McDonalds. Why not Wendy's?  " what do mean that inflation doesn't effect everything, please elaborate" Because the price of goods and services can drop. Look at the Blockbuster employee.  They are worth $0 now. But according to you not only should they be employed, they should also be paid more than the current min. wage. The rest of your comment is just crap.
    1
  47. stripe64 Oh, I have fun here. It is nice to see idiots as it means I will have no problem getting  a high paying job.  
    1
  48. Terry Tater What do other companies say will happen if the min. wage is at $15/hr?  McDonalds is only one employer.  And I would like to see that study.  My comment on Blockbuster showed that those employees are worth $0.  That form of labor dropped in price. Not everything inflates.   
    1
  49. Terry Tater Ok, so you lied than.  
    1
  50. Terry Tater Where did I say I was 38? 
    1
  51. Terry Tater And you feel the only business that exists in this country is McDonalds.  
    1
  52. Kolzi Really?
    1
  53. Kolzi I guess Bernie needs to educate his staff better or tell them not to make him look foolish with dumb tweets. In the end his name is on it so he is responsible. 
    1
  54. Kolzi It shows Bernie does not understand collateral. 
    1
  55. Someone has to provide it. All the money in the world will not mean anything if we lack professors to provide the education.
    1
  56. Anyone can promise other people free stuff. Bernie does not care, he just wants to give away other people's money.
    1
  57. Matthew Meadows I watched the video.  His only response was "well there it money over there we can spend".  That is his only response on these issues.  Rich people have money to take.  There is a reason why he lost, he is an idiot.  
    1
  58. Matthew Meadows I never said taxation was theft, but nice try in labeling me. What bothers me is how Bernie wants to tax people he hates, in this case rich people, more just because they have more money.  What ever happened to equality?  
    1
  59. ***** Wealth does not equal income.
    1
  60. Usamljeny Nitko I agree with that which doe show we need to rethink our tax code.  
    1
  61. Anyone ever consider this. What about the NCAA? No other country has a program like the NCAA attached to their universities. How do you account for that with scholarship limitations? Comparing us to other countries is not that easy.
    1
  62. Kyle is also misleading when he says the US spends as much as the next 8 nations combine. Our GDP is $16.77 trillion. The combine GDP of those nations is $25.9 trillion. If you remove China the GDP is less than the US. We spend as much as them combine because our GDP is around the same as theirs.
    1
  63. Those countries have restrictions on who can attend college. They, by law, prevent people from going. That is now what Bernie is saying. Bernie wants it to be for basically all. No country can afford that, period. Also, if you are not accepted into one of those colleges in other countries they sometimes come to the US. That is why the US has the highest percent of international students.
    1
  64. You have problems with healthcare and your college education system is not as good as the US.There is a reason the US beats you in research and innovation of science and technology.
    1
  65. Antti Syväjärvi We do not have creationism in science class either.  A Bush appointed judge said you can't teach creationism in the science classroom. Look up the Dover vs Pennsylvania case. What is your standard for being educated? Doing well on tests or productivity?  The US is in the top 5 in productivity.  Sure, you may do well on tests.  But we are productive. On healthcare https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf Look at the quality of research in the US, we are superior there.  
    1
  66. It isn't that. It is that left wing ideas like Bernie is proposing won't work. In Europe they have problems with healthcare and free college is not for all. They restrict the amount of students who can attend.
    1
  67. There is a reason why the US has the most international students in the world. Other countries deny them access to their "free college" so they come here. Also, the US has the best university system for a reason.
    1
  68. Sally Costello It won't work because we lack professors, TAs, tutors and other skilled workers to provide the education.  People refuse to develop skills to provide such services. That is why other countries restrict who can go to college. Other countries face problem in healthcare  https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  69. It isn't about who is going to pay for it. It is about who is going provide it? We lack professors, TAs, tutors and other skilled workers to provide the education. You get to the point where you are simply placing a warm body in front of the class and having students doing fill in the blank work for assignments which is lowering the quality of education. Bernie needs stop with his talking points and actually realize that his plans simply will not work.
    1
  70. So wanting to take other people's money to pay for some dude's philosophy degree is not greed?
    1
  71. Bernie lost because he is a nut.
    1
  72. Zach Rak The DNC owned Bernie nothing.  For his entire political career he was an independent until he decides to run for president.  At that point he declared himself a democrat.  He was sabotaging the democratic party.  As much as I dislike the democrats I supported the DNC for how they treated him.
    1
  73. Usamljeny Nitko But he never took the label of being a democrat.  A few years ago Bill O'Reilly called him the democratic senator from Vermont.  Bernie said he was the independent senator from Vermont.  He was not willing to be a part of the democratic party until he wanted to become president.  That is similar to someone not wanting to cheer for a team until they start winning.  Bernie is an opportunist.  Anytime he sees a chance to advance in politics he takes it.  In this case it was taking on the label of being a democrat to increase his chances of being president.  
    1
  74. Usamljeny Nitko"  which discounts the decades that he was content with being an obscure senator nobody really paid attention to." As long as he won in Vermont is all that mattered. So you are saying he ran to sabotage the DNC?  I agree. "No he joined the democratic party because he didn't want to run as an independant; split the vote, and guarantee a republican victory." How does that guaranteed a republican victory? 
    1
  75. Usamljeny Nitko It shows Bernie only cares about himself. He is all talk but no action.  What did he do after he lost?  He bought a third home and sold out to Clinton.  
    1
  76. Usamljeny Nitko He sold out to them to do what he is doing now, show up on the news and keep talking.  He is running his mouth and being critical of the democrats so yes, he is sabotaging them.  
    1
  77. Usamljeny Nitko The problem with the democrats is that since Bush beat Gore they have become radical.  When they took over congress in 2007 they got extreme and promoted Pelosi and Reid.  Eventually we got Obama as a president (that or Clinton).  Since 2007 our country has been a mess and people became sick of the democrats.  That is Trump and republicans won. The democrats need to become more moderate and stop pushing their ideas that we need the government to save us all.  Their ideas do not work and only leads to corruption.  
    1
  78. ***** Bernie endorsed Hillary.  
    1
  79. Cheesus Sliced He lost because he was a nut and a racist.  
    1
  80. mrhazel Remember, if you are white you do not know what it is like to be poor according to Bernie.  
    1
  81. Cheesus Sliced How is Bernie going to provide healthcare and education for all when we lack doctors, nurses, researchers, professors, TAs, tutors and other skilled workers?  
    1
  82. mrhazel I agree, we need nurses.  I teach nurses as well and have friends who are nurses.  One told me we lack nurses because we lack professors. Norway and Germany track their students and have laws that limit the number of students who can enter college.  So it isn't for all.  Also, their university system is not that great. Our military is not that large when you look at it in terms of percent of GDP.  Even at that, we spend more on education already compared to the military.   
    1
  83. Brian Williamson Bernie is a socialist with three homes.   
    1
  84. Xpert520a Easy day at work.  Plus, he is an easy target.  
    1
  85. Tony De Rexxo Bernie ran an entire campaign on how wealth and income inequality is a problem.  Now he owns three homes himself.  
    1
  86. Because they are worthless.
    1
  87. The student loan program increased demand for college without increasing supply. Therefore colleges raised tuition. It is basic econ 101. When demand goes up and supply doesn't, than the price goes up. Bernie's plan will inflate the cost to an obscene level, the only difference is that the tax payers will be footing the bill.
    1
  88. ***** Because they limit how many people can enroll by law.  Bernie wants it for all.  Other countries only offer it to a select few, they are the ones doing the selecting. Reading the comments from Bernie supporters it is safe to assume they will not be the ones going to college.  
    1
  89. sleepingpetal It isn't about classroom size, it is about how we lack professors, TAs, tutors and other skilled workers to provide the education.  I guess we can increase classroom size from 300 to 500, but what do the students learn then?  Less 1 on 1 time or even small group instruction.  Now we are spending money on students to go to college and fail.  Money well spent.
    1
  90. sleepingpetal The issue is that the skilled workers to not exist. The unemployment rate for those with a doctorate is around 2%.  They already have jobs.  You will get to the point that you will be doing what our school is doing, placing warm bodies in front of the students to "teach" them.  We recently had an undergrad biology major teaching a physics lab because we literally had no one to teach it.  You can't consume what you do not produce. 
    1
  91. sleepingpetal How will colleges have more money?  Is the government going to pay colleges more?  That comes back around to the original question of how is Bernie going to pay for it?  Now you are in a competing war with the private sector meaning people with advanced degrees will demand higher salaries making college even more expensive  Also, if you earn a PhD and you are living off of food stamps then you slipped through the cracks.  You get paid well with a doctorate.
    1
  92. sleepingpetal Cutting defense spending won't do much.  Defense spending makes up less than 4% of our GDP.  College education makes up close to 3% of our GDP.  "schools themselves can stop blowing money in the areas such as the athletics department, recreation facilities, unnecessary bureaucracy, marketing" I agree that we should get rid of bureaucracy, but having the federal government run universities will just add to it, not remove. Athletic departments have a lot of benefits for students.  Several students get jobs to better themselves while studying.  They can work as equipment managers, video, athletic training and so on. That gives them hands on experience and develops connections to get a job after college, which is the main point of college. Recreational areas are important because so many people move away from home to attend college. It is a place for them to workout or have healthy activities.  "Universities have always been competing with the private sectors." And how is government running education going to solve that? "And no, the road to getting a Ph.D pays you a starving wage." I am earning a PhD now and I am fine. Sure you are not paid much, but it is a sacrifice you make to earn more later.  It comes back to people are lazy. 
    1
  93. Hedgpig Nope.  Besides lacking skilled workers in college, another problem we have is that people feel that once you earn a degree you are in line for a high paying job.  That is not really the case. What gets you jobs are not only skills but connections.  People need to develop connections to get a job.  I just wrote a comment about the benefits of the athletic department and how someone who wants to be an athletic trainer in the future can work as a student trainer as an undergrad. I see so many people who go to college but do not talk to their professors or TAs.  They are not developing connections and after they graduate they struggle at getting a job.  That is another problem.  Making it free does not alleviate that problem as well because just earning a degree is only on part of getting a better job.
    1
  94. Hedgpig We have the K-12 education system in all 50 states.  After that you can learn on your own.
    1
  95. Hedgpig Whether or not you want to be educated is on you. 
    1
  96. sleepingpetal Cutting defense will not make a difference.  A reason why is because funding college is different then funding K-12 education. There are less expenses and a different structure.  Even at that you have to follow the constitution.  All defense spending comes from the federal government.  Most education spending comes from the state and local level.  You can't just cut a federal program to fund a state one.   "Like you said earlier, we cannot consume more than we produce, If the students are having trouble getting into classes and graduate on time, why should we continue to allocate funds to the athletic department and the recreational centers? These are not things that every students use/need. Not every student is going to get their work experience in playing or managing sports, and not all students go to the gym. These are luxuries, and I would imagine most students would trade all of this for free or reduced tuition." Athletic programs create several jobs and give hands on experience for students.  I know several people who have a job because they worked in athletics.  Cutting it will remove one important area of college.  Also, not every student needs a study area, how about we remove those?  I hardly used the quiet study areas in college, I can easily say eliminate them.  Not every student uses the tutoring centers on campus, I guess we should remove those as well. Also, to say that students will trade those off for a reduce tuition is not true.  In UC Santa Cruz the students voted, by a large margin, to raise tuition to save the athletic department. "No, the private sector is always competing with the public sector, and the private sector tends to win salary fight. However, people choose to work in the public sector for stability reason (although that sense of stability goes away during the wait for the new state budget). " And because of stability reasons you have lack of efficiencies. Tenure is a debatable issue.  When a professor gets tenure they can just cruise on by the rest of their life. "Why teach at a University for 70k when you can make 120k in the private sector and retire early? " I agree. That comes back to the problem of how do you afford it now?  Bernie has a plan, but his numbers will be too low. In order to attract workers you have to pay them more increasing the cost of education even more.
    1
  97. True. I find it funny how Bernie and his supporters point towards those countries as an example of success but only pick what they like about it. If you told them they had to serve in the military they will cry.
    1
  98. ladyunicornejg, the barrier is that we lack skilled workers to teach students the subject matter. In my university we have over 300 physics 1 students, and that is just algebra base, not the calc based class. These students lack the ability to get 1 on 1 instruction, or at the very least small group instruction. They struggle and do not do well in a course they can. If you make college free you make that problem worse.
    1
  99. ladyunicornejg I disagree.  Most libertarians are willing to have a middle ground discussion. To me it is people like Bernie and his supporters who aren't.  You can convince a libertarian to have free college at the state level.  But you probably won't get that by a Bernie supporter. But, a problem with saying we need to educate more professors is flawed. To earn an advanced degree is a lot of work.  Not many people are willing to do it.  Even if they do they go to the private sector to earn real money.  
    1
  100. ladyunicornejg I agree those libertarians exist.  But they are the minority.   
    1
  101. Fiend for Memes Police and fire fighters are funded and ran by the local governments. As is, around 70% of fire fighters are volunteer.  
    1
  102. Nothing really. That is one major reason why I do not want the federal government in control of it. It does show a great point. Bernie and his supporters complain about corruption in the federal government, but then what that same federal government running your healthcare and college.
    1
  103. arsa rawr The more local government the less corrupt it is.  Limit the size of the federal government and go to more state rights and we will be fine.  Also, medicare is a mess. Other countries have just as many problems as the US.
    1
  104. arsa rawr If the government is going to flip the bill they are going to want to run it.  In European countries they restrict the number of students who can attend.  That is why the US is number 1 in percent of international students.
    1
  105. arsa rawr State rights is the way to go.  That is not off topic at all . The price goes down because the quality goes down.  Medicare is losing money.  
    1
  106. arsa rawr Why is states rights off topic when it comes to college and medicare?  
    1
  107. Bernie makes himself look dumb.
    1
  108. ParadoxGambit All Bernie does is promise to give away other people's money. 
    1
  109. ***** Really? How?   
    1
  110. Nature Boy He feels that all we have to do to pay for his ideas is just raise taxes.  It does not address the main barrier in healthcare and education.  We lack professors, TAs, tutors, doctors, nurses, researchers and other skilled workers in those fields.  How are you going to provide those services when no one is there to provide it?
    1
  111. ***** I work at a university and I see it first hand how we lack professors. And a lot of the ones we have do not teach well.  Also, the idea that making college free will create more professors is not true.  The reason why we lack those skilled jobs is because the work is challenging.  Have you ever tried to pursue a doctorate?
    1
  112. Dicita Lore I never said afford, I am talking about provide it.  Money does not teach classes, people with the proper skill set do.  The reason why we lack instructors at universities is because obtaining those skills is challenging. Have you ever tried to pursue a doctorate?  Or even a masters?  There are students having a hard time earning an actual degree, let alone an advanced one.  The affordability argument is lame when it comes to college.  If you pursue the right degree you will earn a high income.  The fact is people simply refuse to do the work.  Sure you may have to pull out a loan, but with the right degree you can easily pay that off. As is if we made college free the quality will have to drop just so we can offer it to everyone.   People will lack one on one instruction, or at the very least small group instruction to learn the subject in a proper way, especially ones in the STEM fields.  And we will have to hire instructors who will just be warm bodies "teaching" the class but will be very poor at it.  But let me ask you.  What is your major?
    1
  113. Louis Camiscioli Not really.  One, education does not mean intelligent. Someone with a PhD in philosophy is more educated than someone with a masters in chemistry.   Now who is more intelligent?  Also, those with a higher wage typically vote republican. 
    1
  114. And most people follow the guy offering you free shit.
    1
  115. Alex Jackson I can argue that college does not give you that road map.  With the exception of the STEM fields the material can be vague, especially the higher up you go.  Most fields you can teach on your own.  I had a professor made the class read Shock Doctrine for class. That is not a roadmap but him pushing his ideals on people.  
    1
  116. Jason Reyes Actually I am earning my PhD right now. 
    1
  117. ***** With your career that sounds like a STEM career.  I agree those fields you should go to college for, but they are worth it.  Other fields like gender studies, philosophy, history and so on are pretty much worthless and can be studied on one's own time.  Saying education has a large return on investment is questionable.  It depends on the field.  The military does return a lot.  Also, we spend less on the military than we do on education in this country.  So I do not see a reason to attack it. My professor was pushing his ideals on people.  He though Shock Doctrine was a reliable source of information.   
    1
  118. ***** The STEM fields promote creativity.  Other fields not so much.  Also, if you want to learn history and philosophy then fine, pay with your own money. I am not saying they should not be taught.  
    1
  119. ***** I feel they should not subsidize any college education. But people feel they should and call it an investment. If you want to invest in education and get a return than the STEM fields is where to go.  
    1
  120. ***** Creative writing is not that productive.  Also, you can do that on your own.  Same with music.  
    1
  121. ***** It is an investment though.  You are going to college to work for a better career.  If you simply want to learn then fine,  but you do not necessarily need to go to college for that.  
    1
  122. ***** If you want to pursue those degrees than fine.  Just be aware that as a whole they typically do not pay off in the end.  Do not complain when that happens.  
    1
  123. Bernie is an extremist. What he is proposing is not even done in other countries. With "free college" we lack skilled workers to provide it such as professors and TAs. How are you going to provide it when we lack skilled workers?
    1
  124. It will be free for some. Under Bernie's plan he wants the rich to pay for it. That means for those who are not rich will get it for free.
    1
  125. Who would listen to Bernie? He says the same things over and over again. If he won the presidency I was going to make the Bernie Sanders pull string doll.
    1
  126. So wanting someone else to pay for your college degree is not about me, myself and I?
    1
  127. Uriel Rios Problem is that when you start giving them handouts they develop the mentality of that is all their life is.  They will not go to college because their parents never did and made it.  Why should they?  And here you come with another handout to "help" them when in reality to are cuddling them.
    1
  128. Usamljeny Nitko Not really.  A reason why we lack skilled workers is because people do not want to put in the work to do it.  It is challenging to obtain a masters or a doctorate.  And most that get those degrees end up working in the private sector where there is more money. So unless you pay professors and TAs more there will be no one to educate others.  If you pay them more than you drive up the cost which does come to who will pay for it?   People have the ability to go to college and become educated.  You can pull out a loan to do so.  Problem is that it does require work and few want to do it, especially those pushing for "free college".  How many of them are willing to teach a class of 500 students?  How many of them are going to attend graduate school?  It is easy to throw money at a system and expect others to provide something.  
    1
  129. Usamljeny Nitko So no, I am not trolling. That is a legit concern. In my university we lack instructors, especially in the STEM fields.  We are putting warm bodies in front of students to "teach" them.  We had an undergraduate biology major teach a physics lab.  We are accepting a record number of students into the chemistry grad program just to teach lab.  We are already expecting at least 1/3 of them to fail within a year.  So we are setting up these students for failure right away.  The undergrads are not receiving a proper education. One way we are also working around it is that all work will be done online, even graded.  So they are not given proper feedback.  When it comes to physics that hurts the students as there are a lot of concepts that they are not taught and miss out on.  They struggle and fail out when in reality they have the ability.  We are setting up those students for failure. In the end it is a prime example of why socialism always fails.  The quality of services ends up not being good to where only the highly intelligent succeed and everyone else is left behind.  It isn't based on hard work but instead talent and whoever has an economic advantage.  You tell current professors and TAs to teach more students they will demand more money and also lower the quality of education.  That does not help anyone.  It only sets up a lot of students for failure and now the money has been wasted.  
    1
  130. One thing people are ignoring is the NCAA. No other country has a program like the NCAA attached to their universities. So how do you account for that with scholarship limitations?
    1
  131. liam5ify I know the NCAA operates in Canada, but if you were to make college "free" how will you control the larger schools from just recruiting all the talent? You no longer have scholarship restrictions.  
    1
  132. Here is the thing with Bernie and why I am not fooled by him. The issue of "free college" is complicated. Meanwhile Bernie makes it sound so easy. To him all we have to do is just raise taxes. If it were that easy it would have been done years ago. It isn't.
    1
  133. Zach Stirk Ok, list them. 
    1
  134. Osmin, Kyle refuses to debate anyone. I will debate him if he wants. But he will just hide instead.
    1
  135. Osmin, Kyle just showed a chart on discretionary spending when in reality less than 20% of our federal budget goes towards defense. That spending is less than 4% of our GDP and that has been dropping for years now. We spend over 7% of GDP on education. So us, as a nation, spend more on education then defense. And to point towards defense spending and say we can afford it, around 3% of GDP goes towards college. So in order to afford it we will have to cut our defense spending down to around 1% of GDP which is less than most nations. He also said we spend more that 8 nations combine. Our GDP is 16.77 trillion. For those nations he list South Korea: 1.3 trillion India: 1.8 trillion Japan: 4.92 trillion Germany: 3.73 trillion France: 2.8 trillion Saudi Arabia: 0.748 trillion Russia: 2.097 trillion China: 9.24 trillion Which is 25.92 trillion dollars. If you remove China that is 16.5 trillion dollars, less than the US. So of course we spend as much as them combine when our total GDP is comparable to all of them combine. Saudi Arabia, by the way, spends over 15% of their GDP on defense. So basically Kyle is being deceptive. You can throw numbers out there if you want, but unless you put them in the correct perspective they mean nothing.
    1
  136. Oh you know, from taxing the rich. That is the only answer he ever gives.
    1
  137. Education is not a right.
    1
  138. ***** Nope.  In order to have that "right" someone has to provide it.  Are you going to provide it? 
    1
  139. ***** Also, owning a gun is a right.  So where is my free gun? 
    1
  140. ***** And you will have to get your own education by paying for it.
    1
  141. Nephilim Born Rights protected by the constitution are there to give citizens the ability to control the government. You have a right to pursue an education, but you can't demand others to provide it to you. If you want to learn, say physics, if no one is willing to teach you and/or  offer you notes and books to learn, then that's it. 
    1
  142. Nephilim Born Apparently you don't either  So let me ask you.  Say you want to learn physics and there is no one there to teach it to you and you have no way of buying a textbook.  Now what do you do?
    1
  143. Nephilim Born I agree, you have the right to pursue knowledge.  You DO NOT have a right to other people's property and services.
    1
  144. Jonathan The police do not have to help me if they don't want to.  Police are funded an ran by the local government anyway.  In some areas of the country they don't have police, only the county sheriff and the deputies with no police station in the town limits.  I can call them, they don't have to show up.  Now that can lead to problems come local elections, but in the end they don't have to listen to me. I like how you mention college, I am earning my PhD right now. I also like how you bring up firefighter where around 70% of them are volunteer, and some places have privately funded fire departments such as  in Surprise, AZ.
    1
  145. Jonathan They are funded by local taxes. That is different than the federal level.  Also, if you support a flat tax then I agree with you. But then you have to consider that we also have property taxes.  If you don't own property, should you have a vote or a say in what goes on? There are some areas in the country that have only volunteer fire firefighters, and like police, they are locally funded meaning unless you live there, you don't pay for them. I am reading your comment and I am thinking you are not understanding how those programs are locally ran and funded. Assuming you don't live in the same city as I do, my cops are not funded by your tax dollars just like your cops are not funded by my tax dollars.  
    1
  146. Jonathan Ok, you are still not understanding the entire situation.  The cops in my city are there to promote peace. If you come to my city you don't use them, they are there to promote peace. We pay them to do that.  If you go to my city and throw a brick through a window, they will arrest you.  If you are attacked by someone they will protect you to promote piece (assuming they are there to stop it).  That is the agreement we made as voters in my city.  Do you pay taxes passing through my city?  No, if you don't buy anything.  But restrictions of the constitution we have to allow you to pass by.  In our city we pay cops to promote peace, not to serve you.  That's it.  
    1
  147. Jonathan In some areas fire departments are private, so no, you can't use them without paying a dime.  Local governments can do that as well with police.  With schools, that you failed to mention, you can't send your child to another school outside of your district without paying in most school districts across the country. You are not understanding the issue because you are confusing local and state laws with federal. Local and state laws are different across the country, and what they offer is not a right but a service agreed upon by those residents. In Clark County, Nevada, for example, you can attend in school you want in the district.  But in my home state of MO you can't attend a school outside of your zone without paying extra. If you are zoned for Blue Springs South high school for example, you can't just attend Blue Springs high school without paying.  And you can't come to my city and attend school there at all.  That is the difference in state and local government.  You feel you can come to my city and you have the right to the services of the police.  In reality the residents pay the police to keep the peace. If you come to our city as a guest you have to follow our laws.  They are not serving you but instead serving the tax payers who want peace to be kept.  
    1
  148. Jonathan Again, you don't have a right to those services.  Look at it like this, what if nobody wants to be a cop? There, you no longer have police.  Same with college education, what if no one wants to offer it?  Several universities don't teach certain subjects or offer certain degrees because they can't offer it.  New Mexico has one of the best astronomy programs in the nation due to their clear skies. Seattle doesn't.  How do you offer that to the students in Seattle?  Do you pay for their travel and room and board as well to go to Arizona?  That is the other problem. If you call it a right then you have to force people to offer that service somehow. You mentioned the military.  If nobody joined the military the federal government is allowed to build one through the draft.  They can do that as allowed to by the constitution.  That is the big difference.  A city or town may want a police force, but if no one signs up then they don't have it. You don't have a right to it. Saying you do means that you have to force someone to offer up their services.  
    1
  149. Jonathan I never made the argument of if I don't use it I shouldn't pay.  I made the argument that it is not a right, and it isn't.  So tuition is free, how do you address the fact we lack dorms, TAs, tutors, professors, labs, classrooms, time, etc? On time, we have labs running from 8 AM to 9 PM.  In one case 7 AM to 9 PM.  We are starting to open weekend sessions because we don't have enough labs and equipment. How do you address that?  Also, how do you address the NCAA and scholarships?  That has to play a role as well.  How do you address the fact people will just attend  major colleges leaving little ones behind?  You are ignoring several factors here.  You are assuming everything else will remain the same when it won't. 
    1
  150. How? You will be increasing demand for college without increasing supply. What will stop colleges from just raising prices?
    1
  151. Usamljeny Nitko What is wrong with them being for profit?  That is how they improve.   
    1
  152. Usamljeny Nitko You can't make money without providing a good service, especially with competition.  Being from the Midwest the universities there are fantastic due to there being several all competing.  Going to grad school in the west there are fewer universities so the quality is poor.  If they were not for profit, though, it would be worse.  The college I attend makes up for it by lowering their price. Pursing a degree is either a hobby or an investment, both of which typically cost money.  While you are paying for your degree you do have to put in the work. So yes, millennials are whining when they have to do actual work.  "Also education is pretty much essential to having a decent income level, so it's demand is fairly inelastic," And that is why it is an investment.  No different then someone starting a business.  Someone invests money to start one.  The second  you make it free it is no longer an investment and employers will seek other qualities in a future employee.  Now the college degree has less value.  As is, besides the STEM fields, most degrees you can learn on your own. So to think you need the government to educate you is rather sad.   
    1
  153. Usamljeny Nitko " I never said they weren't, i was just trying to say that the problem isn't they're whining, the problem is that professors and administrators cave to them when they do, because the student is the customer and the customer is always right. So when they don't want a speaker to do a forum at the university or they complain about a bad grade, the University has to listen to them, instead of setting them straight." I tend to disagree.  Anyway, you gain a lot more from college than just an education. You should also gain connections.  If you are a student who complains and can't formulate a solid argument then you will be viewed as a poor student and will have a hard time gaining connections.  So there is more to it than what you are saying.  "What? That doesn't follow what i said. I said thay the demand for an education is inelastic, meaning no matter what the price of tuition is, people are either going to find a way to pay for it, or they practically wouldn't be able to afford it as the cost would lead them to personal insolvency. Or in other words if you don't have enough money, you can't get an education, and one of the only ways to increase you're economic prospects is by obtaining an education, thus creating a permanent impoverished class of people." Not necessarily.  There are a lot of cheap colleges available for those looking to get better.  As I said, it also comes to connections.  Even if you can't get into a four year university you can attend a two year university to start.  To say that people will be priced out of it is simply not true.  You also have night and online courses.  You view government funding for education as an investment.  We lack workers in the STEM fields.  Also, those who excel in the STEM fields can usually excel in other fields such as economics.  The most common degree held by CEOs are engineers and there is a reason why.  They are problem solvers and think critically. The one major drawback of most of those in the STEM fields is their lack of social skills which can usually be cured by working a job with other people. Other field such as philosophy, sociology, economics, etc. are very straight forward to read up on and learn.  The best way to teach those subjects is to teach students how to develop a proper argument, that's it.  What I mean is say you are debating an economic subject, say the min. wage.  I had one co-worker tell me that that the average age of the min. wage worker is 31.  I told them that is not looking at the data correctly.  Say you have 3 people all earning the min. wage.  One is 16, one is 20, another is 57.  The average age is 31. One person skews the data.  But even that can be taught in a statistics course about the proper way to analyze stats. In all, if you want the government to "invest" in society through education you have to look at what has always develop wealth.  Through history, especially since the industrial revolution that has always been the STEM fields.  That is also shown through the low unemployment rate and high earnings by those with a STEM degree.  You want people to have a job and feel you need a degree for a job.  STEM fields increases your chance.  So no, it is not smog arrogance.  It is as simple fact that if we want government to invest in society to develop wealth then we have to invest in the STEM fields.  Philosophy majors earn around $40,000 a year. Is that really an investment? 
    1
  154. Peter Pan In the European system they track their students to where if they feel you are not college material they restrict you from attending.   If we only allowed the best and brightest in college and no one else then yes, we will have the same results.  Instead we allow more people which is why we have the highest percentage of international students.  Those who are not considered to be college material go to a trade school.  So if you want that system where if you are basically considered too stupid for college so they ban you from it by law, then fine.  European countries have problem with their healthcare system as well.  https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  155. Usamljeny Nitko That book was written by two professors, one who is the chair of their department.  I thought you liberals love college education and professors?  Also, they cite several peer reviewed sources.  You should read their book and realize their conclusion they came up with.  You will be surprised on what they concluded. But I guess it is easier to pull a logical fallacy and refuse to read up on a differing opinion. You know, for someone wanting to educate society you seem to be against educating yourself.  
    1
  156. Usamljeny Nitko For the most part yes, think tanks do have a political agenda.  That book is straight forward in how it is written, and here is what one of the authors had to say about it "Prof. Ohsfeldt acknowledges that regression was chosen for its relative simplicity for what he called his “little book project.” And he agrees that some deaths that his book attempted to remove from the life-expectancy tables might be dependent on health-care systems. “We’re not trying to say that these are the precisely correct life-expectancy estimates,” he told me. “We’re just trying to show that there are other factors that affect life-expectancy-at-birth estimates that people quote all the time.” These factors (which could also include rates obesity and smoking, also arguably the result of lifestyle choices rather than health care) call into question the value of country rankings, especially where the difference between the leading countries is often less than a year. Prof. Ohsfeldt compared the situation to college rankings where two schools with minute differences are ranked, somewhat arbitrarily." http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/does-the-us-lead-in-life-expectancy-223/ What they are showing in that book is that you can't just say other countries have better healthcare systems or that the US is inferior.  The stats do not show that.  People go off of the raw data, but when you do a different analysis then the numbers reveal something different. The differences between the results of the US system and other countries is minute, especially when you consider the size of the US and thus the complexity.  At the conclusion of the book they agreed that the US has problems and offer ideas to improve it.  I do not agree with them, but they do say that.  The fact that you refuse to even read part of the book displays the problem with several people in this country, including you.  You refuse to read different sources and critically think.  I am not saying you have to agree with it, but you should read it and think about it. I read several sources and listen to different people. As someone who is actually intelligent I can think critically.  You seem to refuse to consider reading something, that is actually straight forward and easy to read, because you have an attitude of not wanting to learn or feeling you might be wrong. "Yet you have repeatedly misrepresented my postitions, you claimed to know my motivations "you know, for someone wanting to educate society" i never claimed that was my intention," That was your intention though. "Shows that you don't indentify as such, yet have continuely attempted to express; or in case feign, concern over the democratic party; the party that nominally represents liberals and liberal values," In over the past decade the democratic party has become extreme.  I supported a lot of democrats in the past and still support some.  But they are being overtaken by radicals who refuse to think.  Here I offer a book to you and you find a lame excuse to not read it. They have become a group that rather appeal to emotions as opposed to thinking critically.  That is a problem.  They offer good ideas that can be tried in different areas of the country.  But the second you oppose their ideas in anyway then they run away like you are.
    1
  157. And military spending accounts for less than 4% of our GDP. We spend more on education.
    1
  158. coldsteel2204 Education isn't a right.   
    1
  159. Jency Victor Less than 4% of our GDP is on defense spending. We spent over 7% of our GDP on education.  You have to realize that by the constitution all defense spending is federal, period.  Most education funding is done at the state level.  Also, education is not a right.  And you do not need the government to educate you.   
    1
  160. Jebus Hypocristos Look at percent GDP.  All defense spending is federal because states cannot develop a military.  Education spending is done mainly at the state and local level.  As is less than 4% of our GDP is in defense spending.  More than 7% goes to education.   
    1
  161. Neb Shake Through state and local taxes. Completely different than what Bernie is proposing.  Also, the structure is different.  
    1
  162. It cost me $10,000 a year to go to college. I now get my grad school paid for.
    1
  163. Bernie's only response is "attack rich people". That's it. We lack professors, TAs, tutors and other skilled workers in college. How do you plan to offer "free college" when we do not have people available to actually offer it? If anyone changed the subject it was Bernie, as usual. If you asked him to get into details on his plan he reverts back to the same rhetoric of how we have rich people and other people are "sick and tired of working longer hours for lower wages". Really, Bernie lost for a reason. He is an idiot.
    1
  164. Steve Crane Stop saying "fair share" and simply say more.  Until you stop with the appeal to emotion rhetoric typically shouted out by Bernie "the socialist with three homes" Sanders, then we can have a conversation. 
    1
  165. Steve Crane Again, say higher.  Until you stop with the appeal to emotion rhetoric then we can have a grown up conversation.
    1
  166. Steve Crane So you support a flat tax? I do.  
    1
  167. Steve Crane The top 10% earn 40% of the income but pay 70% of federal income taxes, is that fair? 
    1
  168. Steve Crane Why is a flat tax regressive?  Just saying it is does not make it so.  You want fair, there it is.  "when over half of the country makes 30k or less a year" Kind of deceptive to say.  I make less than that and I am fine.  I am also working on my PhD.  So what's your point? "But that's also innacurate because working and middle class report 100% of their income. The wealthy do not. They shelter it, deduct and exploit loopholes..." So your idea is to increase taxes so they shelter more of it?
    1
  169. Steve Crane Yeah, but you are ruling out several things. Do this live alone or have another earner in the household?  Are they young or old?  What is the cost of living where they live at?  With me I earn $23,000 a year.  and I am doing fine.  With a flat tax, someone earns a lot because they produce a lot for society.  If you take away more of their money that means they have less to spend and invest.  If you take $500,000 from someone earning a million that could mean less money to invest in a business or put in a bank that a bank can use for someone to start a business.  You have to understand that the rich are the way they are because they generate wealth.
    1
  170. Steve Crane Not really, a flat tax is a legit argument. We don't use it because politicians use the progressive tax code to buy votes. Also, the tax code is so complicated now because of it which is why you have Warren Buffet paying a lower percent than their secretaries.  A flat tax is simple and easy.  And yes, several economists support it. I find it ironic how you say I act like a child when you are throwing numbers at me with no meaning. 
    1
  171. Steve Crane Uh, politicians don't really explain anything, they just push talking points.  Just like what you are saying that the flat tax does not work but failed to explain why.
    1
  172. Defense spending is less than 4% of our GDP has been dropping.
    1
  173. Zach, public school quality ranges across the entire country. So if someone who attends a poor public school should be punished? Also, there are several cheap colleges to attend to where loans are not an issue. Also, in comparison to other countries, no other country has a program like the NCAA attached to it. Now do you account for that with scholarships?
    1
  174. It isn't about how he is going to pay for it, how is he going to provide it? We lack professors, TAs, tutors and other skilled workers in college. You can throw all the money you want at it but if the workers do not exist you cannot provide a college education to people at that point. If I confronted Bernie I will ask that. He will not give me an answer.
    1
  175. ShuffleFM The tricky part with education is that if you are that skilled you can get a job in the private sector and earn much more.  So if you earn a masters in a STEM field you will most likely want to work in the private sector as opposed to working at a university for a fraction of the income.
    1
  176. Pearce Pedro If a professor comes from the private sector they typically work part time. I do agree, some do come from there to work.  But still, we lack them now.  Increasing enrollment is not going to take on that problem of lack of skilled workers.  To say college is not affordable is simply not true as the income you earn after a degree is worth it if you earn the right degree.  
    1
  177. Trippy, you think single payer will actually save money?
    1
  178. Ekoth They will tax the rich even more.  That is how.  Don't you listen to what Bernie says?  Also, the price will go down.  He never says anything about the quality though.  
    1
  179. Ekoth I agree.  I was making a joke.  What I said will be the typical response of Bernie Sanders and his supporters. What is funny is that by his own numbers SS will only be funded until 2065.  So many first year voters voting for him will support paying higher taxes and not benefiting from them.   
    1
  180. Ekoth You are going to get the same responses of 1. higher taxes 2. somehow it will be cheaper 3. other countries supposedly do it with success  On point three in reality they don't.  They have restrictions on who can and cannot go to college.  The US allows almost everyone.  That is why we have so many international students.  Also, those countries do not have success.   You bring that up they run away.  But those are the responses you will get.   
    1
  181. Amy Thompson It isn't how he is going to pay for it, how is he going to provide it.  We lack professors, TAs, tutors and so on.  With such little skilled workers, how are you going to provide education for all?  As an instructor myself I will demand more money if I have to teach more students.  
    1
  182. BladexZero12 It isn't so much if the money is there, it is that we lack skilled workers to provide it such as professors and TAs.  We have classroom sizes of 500+ students.  How do you expect students to learn then?  I want people to prosper, just giving things away does not do that.  
    1
  183. But asking others to pay for you college degree is not selfish?
    1
  184. Richard Nava So paying for someone's gender studies degree will make society better?  Also, an issue we have now is that we lack skilled workers such as professors and TAs to actually offer a high quality education. How do you provide it at that point?  Giving away degrees does not mean they are educated and skilled.
    1
  185. Richard Nava So you want to pay professors more now?  Ok, now where is the money going to come from?  With that it makes Bernie's numbers to be way off.  Also, you will be competing with the private sector because people that skilled usually go there.  These are not K-12 teachers who lack skills, they are people with advanced degrees. Also, yes, I do not want to pay for someone's gender studies degree.  All the core courses you learn in college can be taught in K-12.
    1
  186. Richard Nava The problem of getting better professors and teachers has been around for decades.  Liberals throw money at the issues feeling it will solve the problem but it doesn't.  In college, though, you really need to learn how to educate yourself.  That is the key part there that no one realizes. "If we want to be successful as a nation, we need an educated populace" Educate how? That is very broad and subjective. I agree university costs are high, but that is because the federal government gives almost everyone a loan.
    1
  187. Richard Nava The vast majority of people qualify for federal loans. We do need better professors. Problem is that if you are that skilled you will most likely work in the private sector. K-12 education is completely ran by the state and local governments.
    1
  188. The US university system is better than the UK's and our healthcare system is, at the very least, just as good.
    1
  189. Several degrees like gender studies will cease to exist at that point.
    1
  190. The government wastes dollars because it does not know how to budget. Do you really think Bernie's plan will make college affordable and save money?
    1
  191. States pay for K-12 education. I feel you need an education for not realizing that.
    1
  192. Ritalin Popper No, Bernie wants the federal government to pay for college.  K-12 is paid by the state.  Completely different.  
    1
  193. Ok, in Bernie's plan does he state how he will increase the number of professors, TAs, tutors and other skilled workers?
    1
  194. MrFusselig Other nations track students where college is not available for all, completely different than what Bernie wants.  
    1
  195. Habeeb Makhoul His plan is nothing but taxes.  I am talking about where are the skilled workers going to come from?  You say we can just hire skilled workers.  The issue is that they do not exist.  Compare it to this, I went into Subway the other day.  All they had was wheat bread at that point.  I could not get white because guess what, they did not have any.  Just like we can't just hire skilled workers because they do not exist.  
    1
  196. Habeeb Makhoul Also, reading his numbers he is off a lot of times.  He wants to create 13 million jobs with a 1 trillion dollar budget.  That will not be that much money for the workers.  That is not even including the other costs.  
    1
  197. kaZ Yeah, very low.  But I never expect Bernie and his supporters to do well in math.  
    1
  198. My username is so obnoxiously long and there is absolutely nothing you can do about the matter Sadly people think federal government run programs actually will be better.
    1
  199. Angel Fox Uh, how about you read the book.  It is written by two professors that cite peer review journals.  But I guess pulling a logical fallacy is all people need these days.  No wonder Trump won.  
    1
  200. Tokenetta Not really.  The number one thing you gain from college are connections.  The piece of paper means nothing.  Your connections and work experience is key.  
    1
  201. Tokenetta Even at that the degree is not enough. References are key.  
    1
  202. That is true. Bill Maher even criticized Bernie saying that if the US is going to pick up the tab, they are going to have to set the price. Bernie has not proposed that. What will stop universities from just raising prices even more? Just like the min. wage. You enforce how much is paid per hour but not per week. What stops businesses from raising prices and cutting hours?
    1
  203. I feel you need an education on supply and demand. We lack the supply to make up for the demand free college will create.
    1
  204. Bernie does not use logic.
    1
  205. Eric Price What did Bernie say that was logical? 
    1
  206. Not everyone needs Bernie's free shit.
    1
  207. gm92845 I have insurance.  Also, Bernie's plan will make healthcare worse.
    1