2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

Not even over here is state college tuition completely free. That said, it's certainly affordable, and we aren't nearly the cheapest Euro country in that regard. There's also a grant system for lower income students that can't afford regular rates. I should know that, because I couldn't have afforded it otherwise (I entered college at a time where my dad was going through a bad streak at work).

Google suggests that Germany is tuition free for public universities.

It's not 100% free, afaik, just extremely cheap. You still pay some administrative fees and such.

That's the same as HRC's proposal. Tuition free.

[celedhring]

Not even over here is state college tuition completely free. That said, it's certainly affordable, and we aren't nearly the cheapest Euro country in that regard. There's also a grant system for lower income students that can't afford regular rates. I should know that, because I couldn't have afforded it otherwise (I entered college at a time where my dad was going through a bad streak at work).

Google suggests that Germany is tuition free for public universities.

It's not 100% free, afaik, just extremely cheap. You still pay some administrative fees and such.

That's the same as HRC's proposal. Tuition free.

*shrugs*. Semantics I guess.

Anyhow, I agree with the general sentiment that the current system of government-backed loans needs nuking and it produces inflated costs for both the public sector and the students themselves.

I think this is one of the places (the other being health care) where American cultural queasiness about letting government manage things directly has ended up creating a system that's actually more inefficient and expensive for the public.

[garbon]

Not even over here is state college tuition completely free. That said, it's certainly affordable, and we aren't nearly the cheapest Euro country in that regard. There's also a grant system for lower income students that can't afford regular rates. I should know that, because I couldn't have afforded it otherwise (I entered college at a time where my dad was going through a bad streak at work).

Google suggests that Germany is tuition free for public universities.

It's not 100% free, afaik, just extremely cheap. You still pay some administrative fees and such.

That's the same as HRC's proposal. Tuition free.

*shrugs*. Semantics I guess.

Not really. Administrative fees are not tuition fees - just as room and board aren't tuition fees either. Also kind of important it what is being discussed as her proposal is then to make cost to pupil at public universities similar to what is seen in Germany.

You are right though that it would be a mistake to describe it as 'free education' as DG has done as there is still some cost.

[Valmy]

I think this is one of the places (the other being health care) where American cultural queasiness about letting government manage things directly has ended up creating a system that's actually more inefficient and expensive for the public.

Ok this is wrong. The system was set up to be managed directly by the government, the state governments. It is supposed to be managed by the government, at least the public schools. Tuition was a penance. But today the states cannot afford to keep funding them so tuition has crept upwards and upwards. I don't think the solution is just to keep the party going by then shifting it to a federal burden. For all kinds of reasons this is a bad idea.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Based on what the DSS fills our heads with, we are led to believe that we would be prosecuted at the drop of a hat for doing what Clinton did.  At the very least we would be permanently barred from accessing classified information again.

Your GS-Whatevah ass, yeah.  But ES and EOP appointments receive exclusive member-only benefits under the TRUMP CARD® Privileges Program. 

Hilarious how you people simply can't figure that shit out.

Not sure who the "you" was in CdM's post, but it seems like Minsky and Valmy are completely ignoring this.

[Valmy]

Not sure who the "you" was in CdM's post, but it seems like Minsky and Valmy are completely ignoring this.

Oh fucking hell. Here I thought we had shifted to a subject I actually give a fuck about.

Look I already stated my opinion on the matter. What do you want from me?

[celedhring]

I think this is one of the places (the other being health care) where American cultural queasiness about letting government manage things directly has ended up creating a system that's actually more inefficient and expensive for the public.

Ok this is wrong. The system was set up to be managed directly by the government, the state governments. It is supposed to be managed by the government, at least the public schools. Tuition was a penance. But today the states cannot afford to keep funding them so tuition has crept upwards and upwards. I don't think the solution is just to keep the party going by then shifting it to a federal burden. For all kinds of reasons this is a bad idea.

I was mainly speaking about the student loan system. Instead of doing direct aid like most Euro governments do, you provide "loans" with the associated financial costs. Because direct aid is bad socialist handouts and we can't have that in America.

The result of that is - like it happens with health care - you end up spending more than your average Euro country in college education, and end up getting a system that's less affordable to students.

As per OECD:



I may be wrong in pinning it on the loan system, I'm sure the issue is more complex than that, but the fact is that you're already spending more than most Euro countries, and you aren't getting your money's worth in terms of producing a system that's not a burden to students.

[Valmy]

I may be wrong in pinning it on the loan system, I'm sure the issue is more complex than that, but the fact is that you're already spending more than most Euro countries, and you aren't getting your money's worth in terms of producing a system that's not a burden to students.

No you would be correct to pin it on the loan system.

The system of public universities was designed to be basically free. And for decades it was. And they are still heavily subsidized. But the student loan system has provided an out for the states to dramatically slash their education budgets and stop funding the universities. So instead the whole thing gets shifted to the students and the feds. The loans, and tuition, was never intended to be a primary source of funding. The way it is currently working is not how it was designed or intended. We meant for the system to be all socialistic and communist. I think the system of university funding needs to be revisited. The states are currently unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations and transferring it all to the Feds and the students while they get to keep their power and control over university education is just bullshit.

But I think more to the point I don't think we can afford to do this. We are already groaning under the obligations to Medicare and Social Security.

Of course this does not apply to private schools but even Euros have those right?

[derspiess]

I think you can store balances on your Woman Card, so we can just use whatever is left on that to pay for it.

[garbon]

I think you can store balances on your Woman Card, so we can just use whatever is left on that to pay for it.

I can confirm it is only ornamental.

[LaCroix]

Based on what the DSS fills our heads with, we are led to believe that we would be prosecuted at the drop of a hat for doing what Clinton did.  At the very least we would be permanently barred from accessing classified information again.

Not sure who the "you" was in CdM's post, but it seems like Minsky and Valmy are completely ignoring this.

as a summer associate last year, I would double check my emails to make sure everything was 100% A-OK re grammar, etc.

meanwhile, from the occasional higher up

subject: matter #????

hey do you more info on this

tahnks

-Well Respected Partner

Sent from my iPhone

sometimes that's just life

[Berkut]

Berkuts plan:

The federal government takes all the money they currently pay out in loans, grants, direct aid to public universities, etc. Stick in a bucket. This defines the initial funding level for the program, and should largely be currently revenue neutral. It should be defined as being funded going forward on the basis of some rational increase tied to percentage of the federal budget.

No states or universities get a nickel unless they sign up for the Federal Public Education Plan.

If they do sign up for said plan, they get an allocation of funds on a per student basis - in a broad stroke they get "total funding/total students" per qualifying student attending a public university or community college or other public institution of higher learning.

However - in order to qualify, you must:

1. Be a public school
2. Agree to a set of rules that amount to very minimal costs for in state residents attending their schools - basically some fees and such at most.

It should be understood that any costs for running the state public universities should come from the state itself. States can and should compete amongst themselves to provide the highest value public education financed by the Federal Public Education Plan and whatever state funds the states choose to allocate from *state* budgets. Tuition for in state students is no longer a revenue source.

Any needed funding should be made up by *state* tax increases on the middle-upper classes, which can be sold on the basis of "Hey, we are saving you 100k per kid in tuition!".

I think this is entirely doable given current funding levels.

[derspiess]

I think you can store balances on your Woman Card, so we can just use whatever is left on that to pay for it.

I can confirm it is only ornamental.

It gets you 10% off at Pantsuits R Us.

[Valmy]

Berkuts plan:

The federal government takes all the money they currently pay out in loans, grants, direct aid to public universities, etc. Stick in a bucket. This defines the initial funding level for the program, and should largely be currently revenue neutral. It should be defined as being funded going forward on the basis of some rational increase tied to percentage of the federal budget.

No states or universities get a nickel unless they sign up for the Federal Public Education Plan.

If they do sign up for said plan, they get an allocation of funds on a per student basis - in a broad stroke they get "total funding/total students" per qualifying student attending a public university or community college or other public institution of higher learning.

However - in order to qualify, you must:

1. Be a public school
2. Agree to a set of rules that amount to very minimal costs for in state residents attending their schools - basically some fees and such at most.

It should be understood that any costs for running the state public universities should come from the state itself. States can and should compete amongst themselves to provide the highest value public education financed by the Federal Public Education Plan and whatever state funds the states choose to allocate from *state* budgets. Tuition for in state students is no longer a revenue source.

Any needed funding should be made up by *state* tax increases on the middle-upper classes, which can be sold on the basis of "Hey, we are saving you 100k per kid in tuition!".

I think this is entirely doable given current funding levels.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[derspiess]

as a summer associate last year, I would double check my emails to make sure everything was 100% A-OK re grammar, etc.

meanwhile, from the occasional higher up

subject: matter #????

hey do you more info on this

tahnks

-Well Respected Partner

Sent from my iPhone

sometimes that's just life

Uh yeah, that's been pretty much my entire career.  I haven't experienced much of that in my current job though, come to think of it.