[King Maxx]

Bernie supporters and disenfranchised Republicans going to either Johnson or Stein are only doing so out of protest for Hillary and Trump. They probably have no idea what the candidates stand for, and is so petty they just throw out their names to pollsters because they know it will cause issues.

I would be surprised if the third parties even reach 10% come November.

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by King Maxx

Bernie supporters and disenfranchised Republicans going to either Johnson or Stein are only doing so out of protest for Hillary and Trump. They probably have no idea what the candidates stand for, and is so petty they just throw out their names to pollsters because they know it will cause issues.

I would be surprised if the third parties even reach 10% come November.

I agree about Stein, but as Auris has pointed out, Johnson still makes some sense depending on whether the voter values foreign policy more importantly than economic policy.

Can someone explain Stein? For every positive she has over Clinton's platform (maybe one or two), there's a half a dozen negatives. What's worse is that Stein can't even enforce any of her supposed stances without the help of the Democrats she disrespects on the daily.

[Retro]

In a rare moment of me not fully supporting Hillary's and Democrat's stances, I really encourage you all to read this article on the "free tuition" concept and its potentially severe impact on private institutions that wouldn't be directly affected by the legislation.

I go to one of these schools - I am attending an institution that, just a few years after my graduation, could be at significant risk of closure or conversion to public status, and we wouldn't survive such a conversion with our small size. I'm passionate about my school and believe it to be legitimately one of the best and most underrated institutions in the nation.

Debt free? Hell yes, we can work with that and it would be an incentive to go to college and strive to get a great education. Tuition free for 80% of Americans? I really think that would de-value higher education as both a commodity and as a credential on resumes, and I think it could seriously damage private universities by limiting their access to new students. And, no shade intended, but small private colleges offer an education that is different and that is in some people's eyes better.

Maybe in the end it would just mean private degrees would become more prestigious or valuable than public ones. Maybe not much would actually happen. But of all the things she's proposed, this is the one I most strongly question.

[Auris]

Originally posted by King Maxx

Bernie supporters and disenfranchised Republicans going to either Johnson or Stein are only doing so out of protest for Hillary and Trump. They probably have no idea what the candidates stand for, and is so petty they just throw out their names to pollsters because they know it will cause issues.

I would be surprised if the third parties even reach 10% come November.

I disagree with Johnson - I think the majority of his supporters know what he stands for and would like to see a viable third party. Sure, many support him in protest to the major candidates but there's a reason why they choose him instead of Stein or Harambe ()

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

I agree about Stein, but as Auris has pointed out, Johnson still makes some sense depending on whether the voter values foreign policy more importantly than economic policy.

Can someone explain Stein? For every positive she has over Clinton (the very few), there's another negative. What's worse is that Stein can't even enforce any of her supposed stances without the help of the Democrats she disrespects on the daily.

Stein is honestly just in this for publicity for the Green Party. She knows that they can't win and she knows that she's hurting Clinton and Johnson but she genuinely believes that the Greens can rise in the future even though they're just Democrats in disguise

[Auris]

Originally posted by Retro

In a rare moment of me not fully supporting Hillary's and Democrat's stances, I really encourage you all to read this article on the "free tuition" concept and its potentially severe impact on private institutions that wouldn't be directly affected by the legislation.

I go to one of these schools - I am attending an institution that, just a few years after my graduation, could be at significant risk of closure or conversion to public status, and we wouldn't survive such a conversion with our small size. I'm passionate about my school and believe it to be legitimately one of the best and most underrated institutions in the nation.

Debt free? Hell yes, we can work with that and it would be an incentive to go to college and strive to get a great education. Tuition free for 80% of Americans? I really think that would de-value higher education as both a commodity and as a credential on resumes, and I think it could seriously damage private universities by limiting their access to new students. And, no shade intended, but small private colleges offer an education that is different and that is in some people's eyes better.

Maybe in the end it would just mean private degrees would become more prestigious or valuable than public ones. Maybe not much would actually happen. But of all the things she's proposed, this is the one I most strongly question.

[Lebanese Dude]

Originally posted by Retro

In a rare moment of me not fully supporting Hillary's and Democrat's stances, I really encourage you all to read this article on the "free tuition" concept and its potentially severe impact on private institutions that wouldn't be directly affected by the legislation.

I go to one of these schools - I am attending an institution that, just a few years after my graduation, could be at significant risk of closure or conversion to public status, and we wouldn't survive such a conversion with our small size. I'm passionate about my school and believe it to be legitimately one of the best and most underrated institutions in the nation.

Debt free? Hell yes, we can work with that and it would be an incentive to go to college and strive to get a great education. Tuition free for 80% of Americans? I really think that would de-value higher education as both a commodity and as a credential on resumes, and I think it could seriously damage private universities by limiting their access to new students. And, no shade intended, but small private colleges offer an education that is different and that is in some people's eyes better.

Maybe in the end it would just mean private degrees would become more prestigious or valuable than public ones. Maybe not much would actually happen. But of all the things she's proposed, this is the one I most strongly question.

I don't agree with free tuition myself either, but "no tuition for public schools" is a worthy goal, to be achieved after careful deliberation and through dozens of legislative and executive steps. It's an incremental process, so the article is unnecessarily fatalist.

The first step is going to be addressing the student debt. That alone is going to take up a significant portion (if not all) of Hillary's time as president and I think we can all agree that's the most pressing issue.

[Auris]

I'm just glad I was smart when applying to schools and got 100% loan-free financial aid from one of the best schools in America. I wouldn't apply to a school that gives me loans or no aid at all unless I had a big scholarship.

[King Maxx]

I agree with the premise. If I was to vote third party (which I would never), it would be Gary Johnson. I do agree with his social policies. And although I disagree with his economic policy, he has some knowledge unlike Trump so in a match-up I would obviously pick him just for that.

BUT, I still think most people have no idea what exactly is a Libertarian is. I still see a lot of disaffected Bernie supporters going for anyone not named Hillary. But that'll changed IF it seems Trump can actually win this thing. If Hillary keeps her lead like it is now, they won't have to vote for her because what's the point.

[Retro]

Originally posted by Lebanese Dude

I don't agree with free tuition myself either, but "no tuition for public schools" is a worthy goal, to be achieved after careful deliberation and through dozens of legislative and executive steps. It's an incremental process, so the article is unnecessarily fatalist.

The first step is going to be addressing the student debt. That alone is going to take up a significant portion (if not all) of Hillary's time as president and I think we can all agree that's the most pressing issue.

Student debt is the first issue, and predatory lending along with it, but this isn't going to stop or slow. It'll only speed up. As college degrees become even more necessary for higher wage jobs, Democrats will keep pushing for accessibility, and while I commend them for that I think they're going about it the wrong way. If we go too far with making it essentially free as is proposed, it's just going to be replaced by some other form of certification that is accessible to less people, and then that credential will become necessary for the best jobs, and the cycle will repeat.

We have to look at as a more nuanced and complex issue that the Sanders rhetoric has made it for voters; in the minds of the college students driving calls for this reform, it's this simple: "college is expensive, but you need a degree to get a great job, so let's make it free."

[King Maxx]

I no do not get excited or nervous when Hillary and liberals talk about free tuition because I simply don't see it happening. I feel Hillary needed to do it because Bernie supporters would've spoiled the election.

I do however can foresee what Hillary will do as POTUS. She'll end tax breaks and loopholes for the rich. Will use that money to make community college free which is a good direction. Obama already started, and we have tons of free trade schools in the US. Then go and fix people with student debt, with refinancing and relieving. That alone will help ease the pain of millions.

However she'll "attempt" to push free tuition for all, will fail with Congress. Will compromise and do it for families with incomes around $20K-$40K salaries. Low income families. It'll be her new HillaryCare/Children's insurance program scenario talking point she'll use for reelection in 2020.

[Artemisia]

oh some people here watch the LEGEND, samantha bee too

[Mike91]

Originally posted by Retro

In a rare moment of me not fully supporting Hillary's and Democrat's stances, I really encourage you all to read this article on the "free tuition" concept and its potentially severe impact on private institutions that wouldn't be directly affected by the legislation.

I go to one of these schools - I am attending an institution that, just a few years after my graduation, could be at significant risk of closure or conversion to public status, and we wouldn't survive such a conversion with our small size. I'm passionate about my school and believe it to be legitimately one of the best and most underrated institutions in the nation.

Debt free? Hell yes, we can work with that and it would be an incentive to go to college and strive to get a great education. Tuition free for 80% of Americans? I really think that would de-value higher education as both a commodity and as a credential on resumes, and I think it could seriously damage private universities by limiting their access to new students. And, no shade intended, but small private colleges offer an education that is different and that is in some people's eyes better.

Maybe in the end it would just mean private degrees would become more prestigious or valuable than public ones. Maybe not much would actually happen. But of all the things she's proposed, this is the one I most strongly question.

I'm sure all of this would be considered before being written into law. It's not like it's getting passed anytime soon anyways. Plus I doubt it'll include private universities in the end.

The main problem with the cost of college is the fact it keeps going up because of loans. Also, schools that keep raising their prices to pay for stadiums, etc.

Either way, the cost of college is way too much and it needs to tackled.

[that G.U.Y.]

College was originally meant for upper crust individuals to begin with.

The debt problem began when people started taking loans of $20,000 - $150,000 to go to a private institution they honestly could not afford. There are plenty of rich families that can pay for private schools' tuition costs. State funded college education is the natural next step for our society tbh.

Also college isn't for everyone. As Hillary Clinton mentioned she wants to provide free tuition for trade schools as well for people who just want or need to get a good paying job after high school.

[lilostolemycoke]

Originally posted by Retro

In a rare moment of me not fully supporting Hillary's and Democrat's stances, I really encourage you all to read this article on the "free tuition" concept and its potentially severe impact on private institutions that wouldn't be directly affected by the legislation.

I go to one of these schools - I am attending an institution that, just a few years after my graduation, could be at significant risk of closure or conversion to public status, and we wouldn't survive such a conversion with our small size. I'm passionate about my school and believe it to be legitimately one of the best and most underrated institutions in the nation.

Debt free? Hell yes, we can work with that and it would be an incentive to go to college and strive to get a great education. Tuition free for 80% of Americans? I really think that would de-value higher education as both a commodity and as a credential on resumes, and I think it could seriously damage private universities by limiting their access to new students. And, no shade intended, but small private colleges offer an education that is different and that is in some people's eyes better.

Maybe in the end it would just mean private degrees would become more prestigious or valuable than public ones. Maybe not much would actually happen. But of all the things she's proposed, this is the one I most strongly question.

i agree. i love hillary with all get out and i was really upset when she started to adopt bernie's college ideas.


debt free is the way to go imo

[Retro]

Besides that I also had a minor epiphany about capitalism that made me feel super stupid and made me come to support it a lot more as a general concept lol

[King Maxx]

But I have a serious question for "free tuition" fans. If we can successful create a program and plan that helps people already with student debt refinance and relieve it, then what's the point of future students getting it for free. Isn't it just a better idea, especially for the US economy, to do debt forgiveness?

[Retro]

Originally posted by that G.U.Y.

State funded college education is the natural next step for our society tbh.

But why? What comes after? The natural state of our society is such that something will take the place of college education as a qualifier for jobs to which access was formerly limited by access to degrees in turn being limited by economic factors. Will it actually have any significant, positive long term impact, or will we be in the same place in 40 years debating whether x or y new certification should be publicly available and fully funded because it will have become necessary for a good job?

[Mike91]

I don't think college should be free (except for community college), but it also shouldn't cost nowhere near as much as it costs. Anyone who wants to go to college should be able to do so regardless of income and without going into debt.

I also agree that college shouldn't the only way to success. Our education system, work system, etc needs to be modernized anyways. There are a lot of jobs that don't necessarily need 4 year degrees that many employers still require now.

[King Maxx]

As president, she will obviously be more sensible, but she can't win without saying FREE, FREE, FREE.

While 79 percent of millennials support free college, only 64 percent of Gen Xers and 49 percent of boomers feel similarly. Support is also split along political lines. Democrats overwhelmingly support the idea.

Debt forgiveness is not as attractive as free college, the survey found. About a third of those surveyed said student loans should be forgiven after the debtor makes payments for 10 years, but 40 percent said the loan should never be forgiven. So while the future might be student loan-free, Americans don't expect to cut a break for those who are already laden with debt.

[lilostolemycoke]

Originally posted by King Maxx

But I have a serious question for "free tuition" fans. If we can successful create a program and plan that helps people already with student debt refinance and relieve it, then what's the point of future students getting it for free. Isn't it just a better idea, especially for the US economy, to do the former.

this. and i also don't know how i feel with many people out here paying off student loans but the new crop gets it for free


we need to focus on refinancing student loans that exist, reducing the price of tuition, making it work with a better student loan plan but keep the focus on grants and also expand work study.