Why the fuck are people so excited about the concept of welfare like its some fresh new idea?
>>66769949
I don't understanding your meaning. I think people are excited about the expansion of welfare. These people are excited about receiving free shit.
>>66769949
>>66770104
The generation before yours paid pittance in regards to healthcare and education. A time when America was ruled by big money much less than today. And see how it benefited that generation and America herself during the times when she looked after citizens.
Sanders wants to give the people a lifeline so they don't drown in debt from education and healthcare, especially considering the low wages and extremely high expenses of living.
He's fighting for you and you don't even know it. You know what free education will do? Your crime rate will drop, you'll have much more innovation, educated people get sick less. But you don't care about that. As long as you're entertained that's all that matters. Sad!
>>66771529
>You know what free education will do? Your crime rate will drop, you'll have much more innovation, educated people get sick less
this is operating under the assumption that the education is actually GOOD
>>66771646
Education is education, like 1 + 1 , there are standards, guidelines and preset rules to adhere to.
Quality teachers however is a completely different matter. How do you get quality teachers? Invest in education. Aside from just pouring money into that department you ensure the future generation, which will end up being the teachers of tomorrow are well looked after. They can't be well looked after when the presidents main focus is profits or keeping the share holders happy.
>>66771529
Health care and education are significantly more expensive in the US today than 50 years ago precisely because of government intervention in the markets. More government intervention is not the solution.
>>66771529
>You know what free education will do? Your crime rate will drop...
Also, if criminals are dropping out of FREE high school at 15 years old, how is government paid university going to help them? They weren't even taking advantage of government paid high school.
>>66772220
A nation and its citizens are ruled by government. Government solution is your only option. No magic being is going to descend from the clouds and save you. What are your solutions? Lets hear them.
>>66772533
>A nation and its citizens are ruled by government.
You have everything backwards.
>What are your solutions?
End all of the government action which is making university significantly more expensive than it was 50 years ago. I guess I get to paste information which had been on /pol/ before.
>>66772533
>>66772706
Recently, research has counterintuitively indicated a need to scale back the financial aid we offer prospective students since such policies have thus far made higher education LESS affordable. [1]
In response, there has been one main criticism to that research: "How in the world could increased college assistance have come BEFORE increased tuition costs?" "Go ahead," exclaim the skeptics, "look at the historic record. Tuition increases came first! They were not CAUSED by expansions in financial aid!"
We decided to fact check this critique by doing precisely what was asked; looking at the historic record.
[The following dollar figures have all been adjusted for inflation.] From 1971 to 1981, annual tuition and fees for higher education only rose $2 for a public two year facility. [2] You read that correctly. ONLY two dollars. For a public, four year state school, in state tuition and fees had actually DECREASED $190. For the same period of time, a private four year institution, ALSO decreased by $304. [2] This is very important to note. It means that the cost of higher education was NOT rising at an alarming rate at this point in history. Rather, it had actually decreased or, at most, broken even. (depending on the circumstance) Since that time, however, tuition unfortunately inclined sharply.
So then, what is the record on financial aid for higher education? Unlike the claims from the critics, expansions in financial aid programs DID come BEFORE the start of the tuition crisis. Federal financial aid had its start in 1958, with the National Defense Student Loan Program for low-income students, the precursor to the Perkins Loan Program, and soon after with the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1963 [a]. Note, however, these were relatively small programs and therefore didn't necessarily distort the market in any impactful way. They truly were helping low income individuals, and thus were not wide-scale programs.
>>66772533
>>66772757
It wasn't until later, in 1965, 1972, and 1978, when the financial aid that we recognize today began to take hold. In 1965, for instance, the precursors to the Pell Grant and Stafford Loans were created as part of the "Higher Education Act. [3] At that time, a key change occurred in the way federal tuition loan programs were financed. "Instead of using government money directly, the loans would be made by bankers. But if students defaulted, the government guaranteed that IT would cover the tab." [4] Think about this perverse incentive for a moment. It meant that capital could be offered in the form of student loans under the presumption that profit from said loans could be kept privately, but if and when losses arose, banks and investors wouldn't have to lose their money since TAXPAYERS would foot the bill. Effectively, this was socializing losses while privatizing gains. It would take years for this perverse incentive to grow into a large scale problem, but it eventually did.
>>66772533
>>66772782
In '72, the precursor to the Pell Grant was created, but more importantly, Sallie Mae was created by Nixon and the Congress. Sallie Mae was a firm that received help from the treasury to buy student loans off of banks, freeing the banks to then offer even MORE federally insured loans. [4] From that point forward, banks had nothing to lose by offering loans since they - quite literally - could ONLY profit from the exchange. That meant a bank's sound underwriting reasoning, which typically would lead them to decline risky or unreasonable loan requests, was no longer present. If that weren't bad enough, the most important change came in 1978 with the Middle Income Student Assistance Act, which expanded federal student assistance programs to include middle-income students in addition to low-income students. [3] This is where everything changed. From this point forward, most of these financial aid programs were no longer limited to a minority of low income applicants, but instead became the norm for nearly the entire populace. Under this arrangement, loans would eventually be made to nearly everyone regardless of the requested price of tuition, and tuition would therefore be free to rise unchecked since no financial institution was saying "no." It should be no surprise, then, that this was the last decade our nation enjoyed relatively affordable tuition. Since that 1978 expansion, the cost of higher education increased more than 13 fold; about 1,225 percent. [5] To put that into perspective, in the same time period, ordinary inflation (CPI) had only increased 279 percent. [5]
>>66772533
>>66772806
CONCLUSION:
NO, massive and alarming increases in tuition did not occur PRIOR to expansions in financial aid. The expansions in financial aid occurred PRIOR to the tuition crisis. We have a legitimate problem on our hands, and it's important that it be properly diagnosed if we are ever to fix it.
Sources:
[1]
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13711.pdf
[2]
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-board-over-time-1
[3]
http://www.finaid.org/educators/history.phtml
[4]
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3622709
[5]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-18/college-tuition-costs-soar-chart-of-the-day (also the source of the graph)
cuz amerifats think that people who lose their jobs should starve to death, and so should their children
because amerifats think that people who are unable to pay for treatment should die
and then a jew shows up to tell them all about these civilized things - public healthcare, welfare etc.
>>66772533
>>66772842
tl;dr End easy government loans and widespread financial aid.
>>66771646
Does Bernie support Common Core?
This would be a deal breaker for me if I was a parent in the USA.
>>66772956
Of course the Left does. It's the nationalization of education. The Left loves nationalizing things because it gives them more control.
>>66772365
And what of those who want to go to college but can't afford it? Because there are probably more of those people than people who just want to drop out after HS. Since after all, most people want a career with decent paying.
I will tell you what will happen to them, they will end up not going to college, work minimum wage or go on welfare and breed and breed. And you can guess statistically what kind family and kids like that are and how they end up, and instead of contributing effectively, end up draining resources and being a burden on society.
Wall street, big money have it easy. They have the government by the balls. Why should they help create more jobs or trickle down more opportunities, its just not profitable, and no one is going to reign them in so they have a free pass to do whatever the fuck they want and are. Hows that working out for america? The only reason im in favor of sanders is he's bringing back great aspects that have worked in the past that made America great. That is, affordable healthcare and education.
>>66769949
watch as this "welfare" country falls apart and collapsed
It's not a good model, trust me. And do not look this country as a model for anything, god damnit, don't believe this meme
>>66773182
>And what of those who want to go to college but can't afford it?
Scholarships are offered in every state. If you are a good student in high school, you can get the majority or all of your tuition paid for by your state and private organizations which offer scholarships. The states in particular require you attend a public university and be a permanent resident of the state. That so many students choose to go to private universities or out of state and take loans for $25k+/yr is a result of their own poor decision making because they don't see the cost until after they graduate (or drop out). Federal government grants and loans are not required to get discounted or "free" university if you are a good student. Federal grants and loans are for poor students, but not the financially poor, the academically poor.
If you were not a good student in high school, why should the government also take taxpayer money to send you to college? If you cannot maintain a decent grades at university, why should taxpayer keep paying for your attendance?
>>66769949
It's mostly white people excited about welfare because they'll finally qualify for it.
>>66772533
Wow you are a faggot go kill yourself
>>66772533
You're just shit posting at this point
>>66773617
Because education is an investment that always payS off
>>66774659
Now I know you're shitposting.
>>66773882
>>66774293
Unless you can tell me how you fix a country without government intervention you can stfu
>>66774996
Whats the incentive for someone to do well In hs if they don't believe they have a future in College they cant afford. Not everyone is going to be a genius And get grants. Free tuition at least gives them hope. How can college grads contribute and innovate if they are preoccupied With debt they cant get out of?
>>66775127
>government people are somehow better and more able to do things than non government people
have you ever worked at, been to or had to deal with any government agency?
>>66775682
Tell me how you fix a country without government intervention or stfu
>>66770104
Excited about my government actually investing my money the way I want it to instead of wasting a shit ton of money on retarded engagements in the Middle East.
