Kerry calls for 1 million more college grads

[zimv20]

link (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-push30.html)


Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday called for an "education revolution" that he said would mean 1 million more college graduates in five years and, in particular, would target minorities and women.

"In an era when college graduates will earn $900,000 more than high school graduates over the course of a career, less than a third of all Americans have a four-year college degree -- and less than a fifth of all African-Americans do," Kerry told about 1,500 people at the annual Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Citizenship Education Fund Conference at the Sheraton Hotel and Towers in Chicago.

"Now if that's not an argument for expanding college education, I don't know what is."

Kerry's plan calls for everything from $10 billion in incentives to states to keep tuition rates low to a plan to make high school curriculums more rigorous.


Kerry is proposing to offer states $10 billion to invest in public colleges and universities, but only if tuition is kept in line with inflation. The Democratic candidate also said he would work with states to create high school programs that ensure students are prepared for college.

[CramSoup]

Kerry is also the first to run saying he was going to reform health care!!!!!

[jefhatfield]

link (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-push30.html)

kerry means well, and i am voting for him, but it's easy for an opponent to ask

1) how will you pay for it, really?
2) and who will make $900,000 dollars more?

sounds kind of fishy to me and it's banter like this which makes my party, the democrats, seem so full of it with the more centrist voters out there who know better

it also leaves us democrats open for the old gop attack of calling the democrats the tax and spend party

i think kerry needs to make inroads in more widespread education, but he should keep within the realms of possibility and not promise something he can't deliver

[blackfox]

well, there was an article in the Washington Post concerning Kerry and Bush in terms of issues come November. Here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10538-2004Jun27.html
Basically, it covers Kerrys' Health Care Initiative, which will cost between $650-950 Billion over ten years. His Education proposal, overall, will cost $ 200 Billion. Boy, you say...that's alot of cash, what do I get? With regards to Health care, 27 million more people will be covered and the government will take care of catastrophic (the most expensive) care for businesses. The full outline of the Education Initiative was not covered, but obviously covers more than the University enrollment linked, which appears to cost $10 Billion...

Well, that's crazy talk, you say...where will we get this pile of cash? Well, Kerry wants to roll back the Bush Tax Cuts on those earning more than $200k a year. The top two tax rates will be changed from the current 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6% respectively, which is what they were before Bush took office...in addition, Kerry will reverse the cuts in the dividend and capital-gains taxes. This will all net about $860 Billion. I do not know where Kerry will get the rest, unless his Health Care Initiative costs the low-ball figure, which is probably unlikely...

Bush, on the other hand, wishes to make his tax cuts permanent, at a cost of $990 Billion over 10 years...I think everyone is familiar with his Health Care and Educational Initiatives...

So the choice is:
Tax cuts made permanent (affecting those it already does, mostly the rich(er)) or
Health Care and Educational overhaul...

Now, I do not know if Kerry would be able to get his Initiatives through a Republican-controlled Congress, or if the continuing cost of the War and balooning deficit, will make him have to trim his proposals (assuming he wins in NOV.), but I like it better than the alternative...

We shall see how the Republican attack-dogs spin this as the election draws nearer...

FYI...

[Chip NoVaMac]

kerry means well, and i am voting for him, but it's easy for an opponent to ask
1) how will you pay for it, really?

I would assume that it will be through spending cuts elsewhere. Also realistically the Republican tax cuts may be rolled back.


2) and who will make $900,000 dollars more?


The quote was "In an era when college graduates will earn $900,000 more than high school graduates over the course of a career...".

I am not sure that I am following you. The reference is that college grads earn more over the course of their career. That I think most of us can support.

The issue is that due to the slower economy and greater demands for unfunded Federal mandates, the states have raided the college funds. Tuitions are rising at many colleges at 10 to 20 percent a year.

sounds kind of fishy to me and it's banter like this which makes my party, the democrats, seem so full of it with the more centrist voters out there who know better

it also leaves us democrats open for the old gop attack of calling the democrats the tax and spend party

i think kerry needs to make inroads in more widespread education, but he should keep within the realms of possibility and not promise something he can't deliver

I think college costs strikes a nerve for many voters, regardless of the Party.

And it is time for the Democrats to shoot back that the GOP stands for "tax cuts and spend", leading to deficit spending.

The key to the $10 billion is that it is probably not a one year expenditure. More than likely it would be over 5 to 10 years. That means only $1 to $2 billion a year. A much more doable number.

It is the centrist voters that i am most afraid of. They only hear what they want, and not think of the bigger picture. They hear a candidate call for tax cuts. But they don't ask where the money will come from to pay for the tax cuts, where are the spending cuts. They don't look at fees paid to go to a park or for cable TV as a tax, but it is.

[jefhatfield]

I would assume that it will be through spending cuts elsewhere. Also realistically the Republican tax cuts may be rolled back.



The quote was "In an era when college graduates will earn $900,000 more than high school graduates over the course of a career...".

I am not sure that I am following you. The reference is that college grads earn more over the course of their career. That I think most of us can support.

The issue is that due to the slower economy and greater demands for unfunded Federal mandates, the states have raided the college funds. Tuitions are rising at many colleges at 10 to 20 percent a year.



I think college costs strikes a nerve for many voters, regardless of the Party.

And it is time for the Democrats to shoot back that the GOP stands for "tax cuts and spend", leading to deficit spending.

The key to the $10 billion is that it is probably not a one year expenditure. More than likely it would be over 5 to 10 years. That means only $1 to $2 billion a year. A much more doable number.

It is the centrist voters that i am most afraid of. They only hear what they want, and not think of the bigger picture. They hear a candidate call for tax cuts. But they don't ask where the money will come from to pay for the tax cuts, where are the spending cuts. They don't look at fees paid to go to a park or for cable TV as a tax, but it is.

1) tax cuts

republican tax cuts...many of us will concede that the rich benefit the most and that's not good for the country as a whole, but there are many "non-rich" out there who like the cuts, and for various reasons

2) college

college grads could make more with a degree, whether it's the most common bachelor's, or less common master's, phd, or even associate degree...certifications also help, too in most cases...but there are bigger factors in one's earning potential...location, chosen industy of job, one's work ethic, overall economy and recessions and booms, innate ability of the individual to thrive in various work environments with different and sometimes difficult people, and yes, luck...so a degree is no guarantee

i remember when i was in college and the professor said one could make a hundred grand more in a lifetime and it blew us all away...and that was in the 80s...but i don't know where, with inflation and a couple of decades, that there could be some pol out there spouting out numbers like nine hundred thousand...nine times more?

so in twenty years would it be fair for me to say that the average college grad will make 8.1 million more in a lifetime than a non-college grad? god, if that were true, i wouldn't mind paying 200k a year for a college education ;)

3) centrist voters

i am a centrist voter and i cannot see myself blindly taking the democratic platform in full of the gop platform in full

i like to read and research both sides very thoroughly and besides the left leaning publications i usually agree with, i also make it a point to hear the more right leaning radio talk show circuit, fox news, and read right leaning commentary by the national review, george f will, all the way to michael savage and rush limbaugh, who are not so much "political" commentary or well thought out research, as they are "entertainment" at the expense of the liberals...actually same can be said for michael moore making fun of the conservatives

the centrists i have met in my life tend to let themselves hear and read both sides, whether it's serious commentary from experts like will, press, novak, etc, or if it's more entertainment like rush and savage, and the centrists i know tend to be more well educated in general and realize taking extreme black and white views is intellectual laziness and often times, ignorance

[Chip NoVaMac]

With tax cuts, people hear those words and don't think where those cuts are going to go.

With college, look at Kerry's words. It was $900,000 over a career, not a year. Even using 40 years that amounts to just over $22,000 per a year over 40 years.

Here in Virginia centrist voters helped elect Gilmore on the promise of the elimination of the car tax (property tax). They did not read his proposal. It stated that economy would have to remain strong. That it only applied to the first $20,000. And that it would be phased in over 5 years (by which time he would be out of office, and not held accountable). And offered no spending cuts to make up the lost revenue.

That is why said centrist voters are an issue. They IMO vote on keywords, and little else. There are few IMO like yourself and myself that look into the promises before pulling a lever.

[Neserk]

I'd prefer they focus education on the K-12. WIth Stafford Loans, Pell Grants, and scholarships anyone can go to college. They need to allow teachers to lay the ground work so students can succeed in college. Putting children in 20 to 1 ratios is a start.

[jefhatfield]

I'd prefer they focus education on the K-12. WIth Stafford Loans, Pell Grants, and scholarships anyone can go to college. They need to allow teachers to lay the ground work so students can succeed in college. Putting children in 20 to 1 ratios is a start.


now that is something i TOTALLY agree with

college, as defined by a bachelor's degree or higher, is 26.1% percent of the population...almost all people in america have education stemming from the K-12 system

i would rather focus on the majority, the K-12 students, who are our society's majority, and put the monies there

our children are our future

[Voltron]

Kerry is also the first to run saying he was going to reform health care!!!!!
Kerry is for whatever will get him elected.

[zimv20]

Kerry is for whatever will get him elected.
please substantiate that

[Sayhey]

I'd prefer they focus education on the K-12. WIth Stafford Loans, Pell Grants, and scholarships anyone can go to college. They need to allow teachers to lay the ground work so students can succeed in college. Putting children in 20 to 1 ratios is a start.

It is not an either/or proposition and if you believe anyone can go to college it is obvious you haven't tried to go lately.

[Voltron]

please substantiate that
Besides the fact that it is my personal opinion based on my observations of his wait a see approach, or wait to see polling data before taking a position, I also have this.
http://www.flipflopper.com/

[Chip NoVaMac]

Besides the fact that it is my personal opinion based on my observations of his wait a see approach, or wait to see polling data before taking a position, I also have this.


i would much rather have a candidate that can use what ever tools to decide on what is needed by the people that he/she represents; than one takes take an authoritarian stance and never admits a changing public stance on matters.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'd prefer they focus education on the K-12. WIth Stafford Loans, Pell Grants, and scholarships anyone can go to college. They need to allow teachers to lay the ground work so students can succeed in college. Putting children in 20 to 1 ratios is a start.

But is not No Child Left Behind was to correct all the ills of the public school system. :rolleyes:

[Voltron]

i would much rather have a candidate that can use what ever tools to decide on what is needed by the people that he/she represents; than one takes take an authoritarian stance and never admits a changing public stance on matters.
The day after 9/11 odds are the public stance was to nuke the Middle East. We need leaders in our country to lead, not follow.

[jefhatfield]

It is not an either/or proposition and if you believe anyone can go to college it is obvious you haven't tried to go lately.

but let's get our pririorities striaght and look at thinks realistically, with the budget in mind and how far the voters are willing to follow your plans

i see this is like a car...

1) K-12 is the engine and
2) college is the shiny hubcaps, trim, and nice leather on the seats

while the latter is fine but not 100 percent necessary in every case, your engine is key and without it, no car

without k-12 running properly, everything else does not matter

let's get the best teachers possible, and more teachers overall and pay them more, let's keep school facilities up to par and wired with technology, and let's keep class size as small as possible

and how could we improve college if the children we bring into it, from the k-12 system, are not properly prepared for career, life, and yes, college?

[jefhatfield]

But is not No Child Left Behind was to correct all the ills of the public school system. :rolleyes:

and for those of you old enough to remember, in 1989, bush sr., hailed himself as the education president ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

The day after 9/11 odds are the public stance was to nuke the Middle East. We need leaders in our country to lead, not follow.


Nice point.

We need someone that leads through the needs and desires of the people, not through their own personal beliefs systems. Otherwise we would still have slaves, the right to vote to only male landowners, and many other liberties that many more enjoy today than in years past.

Maybe if there were no healthcare for our representatives, no pensions for them, and live hand to mouth like many do in this nation they would then take care of the needs that we have as a nation. Not taking care of the needs of the wealthy few.

[Chip NoVaMac]

and for those of you old enough to remember, in 1989, bush sr., hailed himself as the education president ;)

Maybe he should have started with his VP :D

[zimv20]

Besides the fact that it is my personal opinion based on my observations of his wait a see approach, or wait to see polling data before taking a position, I also have this.
http://www.flipflopper.com/
you claimed that kerry changes his position based on what will get him elected, for which i'll allow the assumption that such a change would follow changing poll data.

please present some evidence that kerry changes his position based on polls. i did a cursory glance of the highly biased flipflopper site, and found an example where kerry said he didn't like SUVs, but his family owned one.

that's hypocrisy, not flip-flopping, and certainly not a changed position based on polling.

again, please substantiate your claim.

[themadchemist]

it also leaves us democrats open for the old gop attack of calling the democrats the tax and spend party


There are a lot worse things to tax and spend on than education. And I'd rather be called 'tax and spend' than 'cut tax and spend.' Somehow, magic money bothers me.

[jefhatfield]

Maybe he should have started with his VP :D

bush sr. had no clue of the plight of the common man

his dad was a wealthy politician, he went to an expensive private prep school (andover), and then went to an expensive college (yale and elite skull and bones member...who often go onto great positions power) on his family's dime and did not know what it was like to have to work through school or pay off stafford loans or credit cards

and now his son, george w, is following the same path of wealth and privelidge as his dad, all while trying to make himself look like a regular working american from west texas who is in touch with middle class america ;)

we need someone who has "been there" as a regular middle class american, like clinton, to help mend our school systems...i bet if laura bush, a former teacher, was in the white house, we would be better off for our schools...but she's just basically a decoration...i sometimes wish she was more like nancy or hilary and did "something" for america, especially for our school kids

instead she plays it safe and doesn't want to take the strong first lady role...when w first got into office, i had hopes that his wife would help k-12 and influence her husband

[jefhatfield]

There are a lot worse things to tax and spend on than education. And I'd rather be called 'tax and spend' than 'cut tax and spend.' Somehow, magic money bothers me.

bush came up with magic money...it's called our defecit ;)

[pooky]

The day after 9/11 odds are the public stance was to nuke the Middle East. We need leaders in our country to lead, not follow.

You keep saying that, and it's complete rubbish. Odds are that the public stance was to find out who did it and take care of them. I haven't heard a single person outside of conservative talk radio EVER advocate nuking the middle east. Now go find a poll that says >50% of people wanted to nuke the middle east after 9/11, or shut up and stop trying to hijack a thread about education with your nonsense.

[jefhatfield]

you claimed that kerry changes his position based on what will get him elected, for which i'll allow the assumption that such a change would follow changing poll data.

please present some evidence that kerry changes his position based on polls. i did a cursory glance of the highly biased flipflopper site, and found an example where kerry said he didn't like SUVs, but his family owned one.

that's hypocrisy, not flip-flopping, and certainly not a changed position based on polling.

again, please substantiate your claim.

kerry has been known for his flip flop positions...flip flop sandals are a negative icon now attached to him

at least, to me, i think it means he is looking at both sides of an issue

but w, well he's more black and white, and from what i can see, lands on the wrong side of things way too often...w perceives his stubborness as his strength but to me it meant useless/costly war in iraq, a fake wmd argument to coverup for it, and a weak economy where "tax cuts" went to wealthy, who obviously did not circulate it back into society

so much for another round of gop trickle down

yeah, it's trickle down, gop style, and i am all wet!

[Sayhey]

but let's get our pririorities striaght and look at thinks realistically, with the budget in mind and how far the voters are willing to follow your plans

i see this is like a car...

1) K-12 is the engine and
2) college is the shiny hubcaps, trim, and nice leather on the seats

while the latter is fine but not 100 percent necessary in every case, your engine is key and without it, no car

without k-12 running properly, everything else does not matter

let's get the best teachers possible, and more teachers overall and pay them more, let's keep school facilities up to par and wired with technology, and let's keep class size as small as possible

and how could we improve college if the children we bring into it, from the k-12 system, are not properly prepared for career, life, and yes, college?

Jeff, 20 or 30 years ago I would have agreed with your analogy. Now, it is almost impossible to have a good job with a salary you can raise a family on without a bachelor's degree. A college education can no longer be compared to accessories.

[jefhatfield]

You keep saying that, and it's complete rubbish. Odds are that the public stance was to find out who did it and take care of them. I haven't heard a single person outside of conservative talk radio EVER advocate nuking the middle east. Now go find a poll that says >50% of people wanted to nuke the middle east after 9/11, or shut up and stop trying to hijack a thread about education with your nonsense.

but i have heard people advocating nuking the middle east starting with afganistan

i don't know, but isn't afganistan in asia?

ok, then let's nuke asia...japan, bhutan, tibet, south korea, and taiwan...they're major al qaeda threats ;)

[jefhatfield]

Jeff, 20 or 30 years ago I would have agreed with your analogy. Now, it is almost impossible to have a good job with a salary you can raise a family on without a bachelor's degree. A college education can no longer be compared to accessories.

so for the 74 percent of the american public who has a high school education/diploma as their highest education, that they cannot have a good job or good salary?

so 74 percent cannot raise a family??

i am basing this on the latest almanac's figure that 26.1 percent of americans have a bachelor's or higher

the statistical abstract for the united states states has the number as 23 percent of americans having a bachelor's or higher

...and many, many college grads have low paying jobs and struggle...and have bosses who only possess a high school diploma

take my boss...bill gates...no college degree, and last time i checked, he's very rich ;)

[Lyle]

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Tuesday called for an "education revolution" that he said would mean 1 million more college graduates in five years and, in particular, would target minorities and women...OK, I read the story and even went to Kerry's web site to read his plan (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/index.html) for "Restoring Jobs and Rebuilding Our Economy." What I think I'm reading is that two of the main pushes are:

to create (or restore) a lot of manufacturing jobs; and,
to eliminate tax breaks, etc. that lead U.S. companies to send jobs overseas.

I'm not intentionally trying to gloss over the details, this is just my general impression of what I read.

So, my question is, where are all of the jobs for these additional one million college graduates going to come from? I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that most of the manufacturing jobs in his plan would be more blue-collar jobs, yes? And if you eliminate the tax breaks for outsourcing, that may well cut the number of jobs going overseas but I'm not convinced that they're going to replace those jobs with higher-paid American jobs.

[Lyle]

take my boss...bill gates...no college degree, and last time i checked, he's very rich ;)As is (was?) his father. To be fair, although Bill Gates did manage to become very successful without a college degree, he didn't exactly start out from humble beginnings. And I think that's the (perhaps unstated) subtext here: how to to enable more people who currently can't afford to go to college to do so. Bill Gates could certainly have afforded to finish college if he wanted to.

[zimv20]

So, my question is, where are all of the jobs for these additional one million college graduates going to come from?
i'm not going to suppose any position of kerry's on this ('cuz i don't know), but my personal opinion is that, as the US moves to a more information technology economy than manufacturing, the only way for the US to compete down the road is to remain near the top of innovation heap.

we're losing manufacturing because it's cheaper to do it somewhere else, and often price beats quality.

the US must compete on a quality scale. so while some manufacturing may be able to stay in the US and compete globally, that's not where our future lies.

at the core of this push, of course, is education. i survey the state of the education system in the US and proclaim: we're doomed.

[Sayhey]

so for the 74 percent of the american public who has a high school education/diploma as their highest education, that they cannot have a good job or good salary?

so 74 percent cannot raise a family??

i am basing this on the latest almanac's figure that 26.1 percent of americans have a bachelor's or higher

the statistical abstract for the united states states has the number as 23 percent of americans having a bachelor's or higher

...and many, many college grads have low paying jobs and struggle...and have bosses who only possess a high school diploma

take my boss...bill gates...no college degree, and last time i checked, he's very rich ;)

The answer is yes it is becoming more and more difficult to have a job that does not require a Bachelor's Degree and be able to raise a family. Increasingly it takes the wages of two people to make ends meet, and barely at that. When you and I were growing up that was not the case. There are exceptions, these are mainly in unionized workplaces, but unfortunately there is a drop in the number of unionized households as a percentage of the workforce. If you need me to look up the drop in real income of average wage earners, I can do it, but I'm sure you're aware of the trend.

Oh, and yes, I think your boss has done quite well for himself. The dirty, no-good, *!@#$. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :p

[jefhatfield]

The answer is yes it is becoming more and more difficult to have a job that does not require a Bachelor's Degree and be able to raise a family. Increasingly it takes the wages of two people to make ends meet, and barely at that. When you and I were growing up that was not the case. There are exceptions, these are mainly in unionized workplaces, but unfortunately there is a drop in the number of unionized households as a percentage of the workforce. If you need me to look up the drop in real income of average wage earners, I can do it, but I'm sure you're aware of the trend.

Oh, and yes, I think your boss has done quite well for himself. The dirty, no-good, *!@#$. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. :p

unions, for a time decades ago, had membership in the high 40th percentile, but that was due to war and depression...it has since dropped to low 30th percentile but the way some talk, unions do not exist at all

nope, that's when the number drops to zero, not low 30s

so let's look at the job want ads...many jobs ask for the moon (BA or master's degree and oodles of experience, but rarely gets anything close to that), so one can't go on the want ads they see in papers

businesses/organizations really mostly settle for less...who do you know that fits "all" the criteria of let's say, a basic 30k job? even taco bell asks for their managers to possess MBA degrees...now is there something wrong with that picture?

ask yourself that...reflect ;)

fortunatley, my BA was in hr management, so i learned more than most about the "job market" so i know many employers' so called "qualifications desired" are just pipe dreams and they are happy if they even recieve half that

the united states' secret service requires a warm blooded body guard to step in front of a fast moving bullet to protect a president, politicial, or family member and they would like the bullet-stopping body to possess any number of doctorate degrees...jesus h christ...come on

yeah, yeah, i want to go to college for four or five years, then harvard or yale law school for an additional three years costing 100k or more, so i can have the privelidge of standing between the president and a bullet from the likes of squeeky fromme or some lunatic who is in love with jody foster ;)

[mactastic]

President Bush will say or do anything to get elected.

I make this claim as fact, and nothing you can say will be of any use in refuting it.

[Voltron]

you claimed that kerry changes his position based on what will get him elected, for which i'll allow the assumption that such a change would follow changing poll data.

please present some evidence that kerry changes his position based on polls. i did a cursory glance of the highly biased flipflopper site, and found an example where kerry said he didn't like SUVs, but his family owned one.

that's hypocrisy, not flip-flopping, and certainly not a changed position based on polling.

again, please substantiate your claim.
You didn't check out the other links on the page.

[Voltron]

bush sr. had no clue of the plight of the common man

his dad was a wealthy politician, he went to an expensive private prep school (andover), and then went to an expensive college (yale and elite skull and bones member...who often go onto great positions power) on his family's dime and did not know what it was like to have to work through school or pay off stafford loans or credit cards

and now his son, george w, is following the same path of wealth and privelidge as his dad, all while trying to make himself look like a regular working american from west texas who is in touch with middle class america ;)

we need someone who has "been there" as a regular middle class american, like clinton, to help mend our school systems...i bet if laura bush, a former teacher, was in the white house, we would be better off for our schools...but she's just basically a decoration...i sometimes wish she was more like nancy or hilary and did "something" for america, especially for our school kids

instead she plays it safe and doesn't want to take the strong first lady role...when w first got into office, i had hopes that his wife would help k-12 and influence her husband
Kerry and his wife has many times more money than Bush does. So if you want a poor man to be President relative speaking Bush is it, when compared to Kerry.

[jefhatfield]

Kerry and his wife has many times more money than Bush does. So if you want a poor man to be President relative speaking Bush is it, when compared to Kerry.

kerry married into it, and rather late in life

unlike many snap judgements made against kerry, he was not born into the heinz catsup empire...ok??

too many conservatives i have met say he's the heinz catsup man and he's rich rich rich...uh huh

now that we have that straight...he he...

bush was born rich, and though there is nothing wrong with that, it does seem to influence his policies of favoring the rich, not being in touch with working folk, union folk...and he's the perfect cinc for the rich man's war fought as a poor man's fight

[mactastic]

Kerry and his wife has many times more money than Bush does. So if you want a poor man to be President relative speaking Bush is it, when compared to Kerry.

Not above stooping to a little class warfare, are you? And aren't you always criticizing the left for that? :p

[blackfox]

With reference to Jef's last post (or the last few, actually), I read an Op-Ed story in the NYT today (read: opinion piece), discussing the overuse of the "E" word (that would be Elite) by the GOP. The story in part dealt with Michael Moore, but basically dealt with the proposition/fact (depending how you want to argue it), that for around 25 years anyone left of Republican is somehow in the "liberal elite". Democrats are somehow cast as an " wealthy, arrogant, pampered elite" that live as far away as possible from real America and Americans (literally and figuratively). They are also cast as " tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, NYT-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show"*

Republicans cast themselves as "the faith that represents the hard-working common-people of the heartland, an expression of their unpretentious all-american ways, like Nascar and country music." The coinage and usage of the term "liberal elite" has allowed the republicans to cavort around in luxuriously-funded think-tanks,private jets and boardrooms, while still saying that they represent the Average Joe.

Also, the idea of a "liberal elite" somehow nourishes the delusion (imo) that despite being in control of the WH, Congress, and most of the Supreme Court, they are still a small band of Patriot underdogs fighting against the system (re: the liberal system)

So, my point is not that there are not rich and powerful Liberals out there, there are quite a few. Kerry may be considered one of them, but in terms of who defines the left at the polls, it is made up of many who come from poor or modest backgrounds, and who are often still from modest tax-brackets...teachers, steel-workers, college students, service-industry workers...basically the working class, although a sizeable minority will vote Republican, but still a minority.

When a charge of a "liberal elite" is called by those on the right who obviously are very wealthy and priveliged, it is hypocrisy and serves to distract from the idea of a real "conservative elite", a term you nearly never hear, although perhaps it is redundant.

The above is opinion, and I state it as such...furthermore, all things in quotations were taken from the Op-Ed piece I mentioned earlier...I hope it adds something to the discussion...

*actual quote from right-wing group Club for Growth.

[mactastic]

All true blackfox. Just a manifestation of the care the Right has taken to control the language of debate. I've never understood the 'elite' comments though, considering most rich people (ie. the elites) vote GOP.

[blackfox]

All true blackfox. Just a manifestation of the care the Right has taken to control the language of debate. I've never understood the 'elite' comments though, considering most rich people (ie. the elites) vote GOP.
Well, I think your first statement answers the latter...oh, something else to add (also from the NYT Opinion page)...there was a conservative columist talking about the legacies of Reagan (resulting from his death) and that of Clinton (from his book-release). He goes on to state that many (though not all) democrats were inclined to look back upon Reagans' tenure and conclude it was better than they thought at the time...while conservatives reassesing Clintons' presidency seem to think it was as bad as it always was thought of.

The point, in this article, was to point out the many things Clinton did that shoul've made conservatives proud, especially in comparison to Bush...

For example:
Bringing the federal budget into surplus after inheriting a deficit of 4.7% GDP (currently,it is at 4.2% FYI) in 1992. By 2000 we had a surplus of 2.4%. Important to note is that Clinton accomplished this in part by curtailing spending (Fed, spending fell to 18.4% of GDP in 2000 from 22.2% in 1992) He did raise taxes in 1992, but lowered them in 1997. He reduced the capital-gains tax.

Although much of this saving was accomplished by lowering the Defense Budget and reduced interest on Debt, much of also came from lowered entitlement spending (from 11.5% in 1992 to 10.6% in 2000). Clinton also signed the Welfare Reform Law in 1996, the only time in US history when an entitlement program was abolished.

Clinton also supported free-trade, and NAFTA may not have passed under a different (read: less "persuasive") President.

Clinton also re-appointed Alan Greenspan (a Republican) to the Federal Reserve, helping bring inflation to the lowest sustained levels of a generation.

Bush, in contrast, has caused the Surplus to dissapear, raised Federal Spending by 1.6% of GDP, established a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, and has adopted a very protectionist stance on trade.

While Bush has cut taxes, something conservatives like, which of the two is the traditional "liberal" and which the "conservative" as according to general party interests?

Now, some may argue that it was not Clinton who deserves all the Credit, nor Bush all the blame. The fact that Clinton accomplished some conservative objectives against his will in some cases, or that a Republican Congress prevented him from pushing more liberal agendas through in others is beside the point.

The fact that Bush inherited a recession, resided over a large domestic terrorist attack, or has been bothered by Democratic filibustering of some appointments/proposals is not the point either.

What is the point is that Presidents are not impotent. Sometimes their impact comes from lack of action, rather than the action they do take. Sometimes the President must resist taking action when not taking action is the right course, and sometimes the Presidents' hand is forced against his will. Yet, should not Presidents be judged by what they actually accomplish(ed) in Office? Not what they had intended to do, or would've done if things were different? We in the working world are judged by such criteria...if you are up for review, you are judged upon what you got done, not what you wanted to get done...

So you may not like Clinton as an individual, but as a President he was pretty good, and knee-jerk responses from the right about him being a "tax-and-spend liberal" or just a "liberal" (with all the loaded connotations), are patently false...despite continued cries about him. Perhaps that is why you still hear about the Lewinsky scandal, because if Conservatives were to look beyond that, they might be embarrassed to see that he got more of their objectives accomplished than anyone they got into the WH, and made the country damn prosperous to boot...

On the flip-side, conservatives must also look at Bush as embodying many of the characteristics of governance they so despise and assign to the Liberals...

So, Conservatives, be careful where you tread, and what you say...things are not as clear as you want to paint them...

Also, an unabashed opinion piece (although the figures are fact)...for your enjoyment.

[zimv20]

You didn't check out the other links on the page.
i will not blindly follow every link you post, scour every word and point out every flaw in an attempt to disprove what is not a point you're making, but a URL you're providing.

the burden is on you to prove your point. as you've not done so, i proclaim it invalid.

[Neserk]

Jeff, 20 or 30 years ago I would have agreed with your analogy. Now, it is almost impossible to have a good job with a salary you can raise a family on without a bachelor's degree. A college education can no longer be compared to accessories.

I believe a post high school education is necessity. However, you can't get there unless your training, which begins in Kinder (actually at birth) is poor.

[Sayhey]

unions, for a time decades ago, had membership in the high 40th percentile, but that was due to war and depression...it has since dropped to low 30th percentile but the way some talk, unions do not exist at all

nope, that's when the number drops to zero, not low 30s...

The union movement hasn't had 30% of the workforce since the 1950s to early sixties. The correct figure is below 15%. I wish that was not the case as I worked in the union movement for many years, but the decrease has been the trend for many years.

If you don't know of it, I would suggest looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.toc.htm) website. In particular, I would draw your attention to the figures on real wages. If you look at real wages of non-supervisory workers on private non-farm payrolls (seasonally adjusted) you will see the current trend is downward. The average wage of such workers has declined in real wages (1982 dollars) from last year (May 2003) at $8.28/hr to $8.22/hr this May. In weekly wages the figures are $279.19/week to $277.79/week. If you want I can look up the wages of managers over the same period of time, but I think you know it is in the other direction.

The point of all of this is that the trend under Bush is to squeeze average working people while those at the most privileged sectors of our society benefit. I can't believe this comes as a shock to you or anyone else who has been watching politics for the last three and a half years.

So, yes, the trend is toward the need for Bachelor's Degrees to offset the decline in wages. I've no doubt that you're correct that employers ask for more than they expect in many job categories, but that is hardly the point is it?

[Voltron]

The union movement hasn't had 30% of the workforce since the 1950s to early sixties. The correct figure is below 15%. I wish that was not the case as I worked in the union movement for many years, but the decrease has been the trend for many years.


This would be an interesting thread. I spent some time as a Union Shop Steward for Main Street at Disney Magic Kingdom. I hated it. One guy came up to me with a grievance, his boss called him a lazy good for nothing goof off. I told him well you are a lazy good for nothing goof off, the guy spent more time vacuming the floor than cleaning tables while people stood with their trays in their hands and no place to put them. Wasn't more than an hour later a Union Rep called cussing me out and explaining how I was suppose to take this lazy good for nothing bums side. They wouldn't let me quit the union so I had to quit my job. Once in, you can't get out, no mechanism to stop making union due payments from payroll.

There was a time Unions may have been necessary, today isn't one of them.

Oh this wasn't actually the last straw just the most memorable one, I quit a few months after that incident actually.

[jefhatfield]

The union movement hasn't had 30% of the workforce since the 1950s to early sixties. The correct figure is below 15%. I wish that was not the case as I worked in the union movement for many years, but the decrease has been the trend for many years.

If you don't know of it, I would suggest looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.toc.htm) website. In particular, I would draw your attention to the figures on real wages. If you look at real wages of non-supervisory workers on private non-farm payrolls (seasonally adjusted) you will see the current trend is downward. The average wage of such workers has declined in real wages (1982 dollars) from last year (May 2003) at $8.28/hr to $8.22/hr this May. In weekly wages the figures are $279.19/week to $277.79/week. If you want I can look up the wages of managers over the same period of time, but I think you know it is in the other direction.

The point of all of this is that the trend under Bush is to squeeze average working people while those at the most privileged sectors of our society benefit. I can't believe this comes as a shock to you or anyone else who has been watching politics for the last three and a half years.

So, yes, the trend is toward the need for Bachelor's Degrees to offset the decline in wages. I've no doubt that you're correct that employers ask for more than they expect in many job categories, but that is hardly the point is it?

in a labor law class i took a little more than a decade ago, the low 30th percentile number was stated as a fact from the textbook i was reading...so it's funny how different, so called reliable sources could have different numbers

but then again, what exactly defines "union" membership?

in one of my two jobs i have, the landscaping industry meets in a "society" which discusses county policy as well as forms it...people refer to it as the union, but in reality, it's a non-profit interest group

one day i would like to see the k-12 expand to k-14 so the vast majority of free of charge, educated children will graduate with an associate's degree instead of a high school diploma...and down the road, free education should include k-16 so virtually all can have a bachelor's degree

in effect, tomorrow's bachelor's diploma could be as common as today's high school diploma to keep up with the expanding body of knowledge the human race has attained as well as the increasing need to add technology education to the already formidable traditional education k-12 includes

society would be a utopia if public education could somehow be free of charge to any student who would want to specialize in law, medicine, or academia and pursue a phd...and not have to worry about the cost of tuition, on campus housing, and books

we go to war spending 100 billion going into a country we have no business in so it's not a crazy concept to imagine a steady, though very long term plan to add two to four years of tuition free education for our nation's kids in public schools

but keeping other matters of fiscal responsibility in mind, i would imagine that such a revolutionary upgrading of no-tuition, public education might take many decades to achieve with the cooperation of both political parties

what we cannot have for our future is a college educated sub culture at odds with a non college educated majority...somehow separate and out of touch

i am not a communist, but i think we need to really equalize a lot of things in this country, so to not have educational elites, financial elites, cultural elites, or any other group of separated, and perhaps despised sub culture that others may be jealous of

so don't give those huge tax cuts to the rich...spread the wealth, because frankly, the rich can afford it...it may not be fair so to speak, but i think those who have great wealth and power have greater responsibility

spread the knowledge...let all who want to have a college education have it free of charge...in the long run, it can only help our country...nobody should be more educated than someone else because they had the dough to pay for college and some other person down the street couldn't afford it

but back to the topic...it would be extremely ambitious to yield a million more college graduates in a few years' time though, and more than anything, it sounds like another empty political promise no one can keep

our recession, and lack of measures taken by bush from 2001 until now, has made any ambitious plans of action very hard to take for whoever occupies the white house for the next four years starting next january

[Sayhey]

...but back to the topic...it would be extremely ambitious to yield a million more college graduates in a few years' time though, and more than anything, it sounds like another empty political promise no one can keep

our recession, and lack of measures taken by bush from 2001 until now, has made any ambitious plans of action very hard to take for whoever occupies the white house for the next four years starting next january

Jef, I don't disagree with any of this. I don't know how realistic Kerry's plan is, with about 1.4 million new bachelor's degrees each year a 200,000 increase per year for the next five years is very ambitious. Especially since one doesn't get a BA or BS in one year, so an awful lot of those new degrees would have to be in the later years. Kerry's plan could be just hot air or there could be some real substance behind it, I'll have to go look at the details. However, it would be refreshing to have someone in the White House who has the perspective of trying to increase the number of college grads.

As to union membership, I'm talking about dues paying organizations which negotiate wages, benefits, and working conditions. Organizations covered under the NLRA, Taft-Hartley, etc. I'll look up the exact number of union members if you are interested, but even with the growth of government unions the historic trends toward a smaller and smaller manufacturing sector has eliminated the traditional union strongholds. The idea of a guy holding a union job for a lifetime in which he can raise a family is becoming harder and harder to realize. Combine that with the fractured nature of the union movement and the lack of commitment to organize new industries/workplaces and we have a recipe for disaster. At least as it relates to traditional "blue-collar" families.

[tristan]

Kerry - 1 million more college grads. Yeah! This is why I vote democratic.

How will we pay for it? It'll pay for itself, silly. Let's say the US pays $25k towards the tuition of 1m more college grads. (Assume that the government's providing a lot of help but not paying every dime.) That's $25B.

But those 1m college grads will earn $900k more over their lifetime. That's $900B more to tax. At, say, 25% tax rates, that's $225B more for the treasury.

That's a 900% return. It's a nobrainer. The US should have free college education for anyone who can keep their GPA up, and should continue that policy so long as there's any kind of decent earnings differential.

And frankly, given those returns, most people should be funding their own degrees anyway regardless of whether the govt does it or not. But I'd certainly like to see the government help motivated young people who just don't have the savings but are ultimately great investments for society.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Kerry - 1 million more college grads. Yeah! This is why I vote democratic.

How will we pay for it? It'll pay for itself, silly. Let's say the US pays $25k towards the tuition of 1m more college grads. (Assume that the government's providing a lot of help but not paying every dime.) That's $25B.

But those 1m college grads will earn $900k more over their lifetime. That's $900B more to tax. At, say, 25% tax rates, that's $225B more for the treasury.

That's a 900% return. It's a nobrainer. The US should have free college education for anyone who can keep their GPA up, and should continue that policy so long as there's any kind of decent earnings differential.

And frankly, given those returns, most people should be funding their own degrees anyway regardless of whether the govt does it or not. But I'd certainly like to see the government help motivated young people who just don't have the savings but are ultimately great investments for society.

Hadn't thought of it that way. Right you are. Maybe you should go and work with the Kerry campaign or the DNC spin factory. They need good minds like yours to counter the well honed GOP spin factories.

[Voltron]

That's a 900% return. It's a nobrainer. The US should have free college education for anyone who can keep their GPA up, and should continue that policy so long as there's any kind of decent earnings differential.

And frankly, given those returns, most people should be funding their own degrees anyway regardless of whether the govt does it or not. But I'd certainly like to see the government help motivated young people who just don't have the savings but are ultimately great investments for society.
One problem with that. We already have it. I am currently going to college on a Pell Grant. It pays for 100% of my schooling and 100% of my book fees with about 1000 bucks left over. I could get Student Loan to live on, but I work for a living and don't need it. They do a income test on me and I have to maintain I believe a 2.0 average. If I can get my average above 3.0 or so I could get another scholarship available to everyone of about 900 dollars per semester. I also qualify with a 2.5 average for up to 3500 need based scholorship, but only if I'm into math and engineering so that doesn't count for me. Kerry doesn't need to do a damn thing.

[Chip NoVaMac]

One problem with that. We already have it. I am currently going to college on a Pell Grant. It pays for 100% of my schooling and 100% of my book fees with about 1000 bucks left over. I could get Student Loan to live on, but I work for a living and don't need it. They do a income test on me and I have to maintain I believe a 2.0 average. If I can get my average above 3.0 or so I could get another scholarship available to everyone of about 900 dollars per semester. I also qualify with a 2.5 average for up to 3500 need based scholorship, but only if I'm into math and engineering so that doesn't count for me. Kerry doesn't need to do a damn thing.

You are missing a key part of the program that Kerry has suggested. That is that it will help those that are not eligible for loans, grants, and scholarships keep their costs down. As you know college costs have outpaced the rate of inflation. Mostly due to underfunded Federal mandates.

[jefhatfield]

Kerry - 1 million more college grads. Yeah! This is why I vote democratic.

How will we pay for it? It'll pay for itself, silly. Let's say the US pays $25k towards the tuition of 1m more college grads. (Assume that the government's providing a lot of help but not paying every dime.) That's $25B.

But those 1m college grads will earn $900k more over their lifetime. That's $900B more to tax. At, say, 25% tax rates, that's $225B more for the treasury.

That's a 900% return. It's a nobrainer. The US should have free college education for anyone who can keep their GPA up, and should continue that policy so long as there's any kind of decent earnings differential.

And frankly, given those returns, most people should be funding their own degrees anyway regardless of whether the govt does it or not. But I'd certainly like to see the government help motivated young people who just don't have the savings but are ultimately great investments for society.

try and convice the gop of that one

your argument sounds solid...but, where is the money going to come to start this project? something has to give initially...but yes, eventually it will pay for itself

the same thing can be said of raising minimum wage...eventually more money in the pockets of workers, especially from that segment, will lead to more money being out there being spent on goods and services...tens of millions of people will have more spending money and even though it may result in just a few bucks extra per person, multiply that times five days a week, 52 weeks a year...and times those millions of workers who make minimum wage or near that

but again, try and convince the gop...they have the darn white house, congress, and the supreme court

any gains made toward workers or towards employers is very slow and painful...things stay basically the same and any radical program, like kerry's nearly 15 percent increase in college grads in his first term, is not talking about the washington i know or have read about

kennedy likened it to nailing jello to a wall ;)

...and where i complained about the us govt dragging it's feet in healthcare and education, my conservative roomate in college complained about religious people not getting better protection and abortion still being legal when seemingly all the forces were there to overturn roe v wade

[Chip NoVaMac]

Not to mention that the GOP would see it a reason to cut taxes immediately and then spend the extra tax income before it even reached the Treasury.

[jefhatfield]

Not to mention that the GOP would see it a reason to cut taxes immediately and then spend the extra tax income before it even reached the Treasury.

i say give the money to the worker, and my dad (entrepreneur) says give it to the businesses so they can hire more workers...plus he says the employer is "smarter" with money than the less educated worker

but to me it sounds like trickle down, and from 12 yrs. of reagan/bush I, we saw it didn't work

...but now, 12 years later, i am an entrepreneur and i see the hidden costs of having a business, especially in the state of california...a once endless bastion of possibilities for entrepreneurs...but in a rich country like ours, it doesn't make sense for minimum wage to be under 8-10 dollars an hour in many areas

but back to hidden costs of business?

my computer business, in order to rent a proper building, i cannot find anywhere that has anything less than a 5 year lease under 2k a month...that's a big committment

and if a decide to branch off into pc sales, the customer expects prices not too far off from the big 3...hp/compaq, e-machines, and dell...and there is no way a small guy like me can compete and get the same bulk prices they do...and there's no way i can get in on the "industry" secret price that ms charges those big 3 for windows...last i heard it was $40 dollars for a full version of windows xp

and in my landscaping business, my employees have to have 3 million dollars insurance...each...2 million dollars coverage for gardening/landscaping and 1 million for tree work, even when tree work is not a part of what you do!!...but this is the new rule with many commercial clients who expect that...many trees in california were planted in the late 19th and early 20th century and many of those trees, in residential and business areas, are now reaching the end of their lives and a lot of tree work is present...and yes, it's dangerous work but i guess some lawyers think it's necessary to have coverage just in case ;)...heck, you can sued in california for walking down the street breathing too much air ;)

of course, i think nevada and texas will steal a lot of our entrepreneurs, especially in high tech

i try and keep an holistic picture as the economy as a whole, but many fellow entrepreneurs, who look just inside themselves, and who, collectively have more power than any other group in the usa, will fight any "social" programs the democrats have if it smacks of higher taxes for employers

i think kerry needs to tiptoe to the right just enough to appease employers whether they are small one man businesses, or large multi-national corporations

[tristan]

Voltron - are you in a community college or an inexpensive state school? My understanding is that even most students in public school graduate with some debt.

[Neserk]

You are missing a key part of the program that Kerry has suggested. That is that it will help those that are not eligible for loans, grants, and scholarships keep their costs down. As you know college costs have outpaced the rate of inflation. Mostly due to underfunded Federal mandates.


Everyone who has not been convicted of a felony is eligible for Stafford loans. And if they want them to be get money then all they have to do is lift that ban!

I personally am in the process of borrowing $18,000 (of course I'm a graducate student) which allows me to not only pay my tutuion but my rent and living expenses when I can't work because I have to student teach.

Undergraduates get less but they also qualify for Pell Grants. There is no excuse not to go to college anymore except not wanting to.

Now, if you were talking about trade school/vocational school that would be a different story...

[jefhatfield]

Everyone who has not been convicted of a felony is eligible for Stafford loans. And if they want them to be get money then all they have to do is lift that ban!

I personally am in the process of borrowing $18,000 (of course I'm a graducate student) which allows me to not only pay my tutuion but my rent and living expenses when I can't work because I have to student teach.

Undergraduates get less but they also qualify for Pell Grants. There is no excuse not to go to college anymore except not wanting to.

Now, if you were talking about trade school/vocational school that would be a different story...

remember, when you are out in the working world full time, the stafford loan, which sounded like a great deal then, is not that easy to pay off

but it's not as bad as spending over 20k for tuition on a regular credit card like my friend did for grad school...eight years later, he's still paying on that darn thing...a 7 percent student loan is much easier (but not easy) to pay off 20k or more than a 19 percent credit card for that same amount

he should have taken the large lump sum stafford loan, but he was buying a class in grad school one at a time, and it didn't seem so bad then...but there are major hidden costs when one attends school for even a year, the biggest being the lost wages which takes years to make up for on top of the student loan

my med school friend told me his counselor told him if he graduated in his late 20s-early 30s like most MDs/dentists/vets do, the average age of paying off such a loan was one's late 50s...so it's something to think about

so there are "excuses" for those who say college is too expensive...thank god, at least in california, there is a massive jc/uc/cal state system that is a fraction of the cost of a private college (which can run 20-30k a year)...that is until ahnold terminates it ;)

[Neserk]

remember, when you are out in the working world full time, the stafford loan, which sounded like a great deal then, is not that easy to pay off

but it's not as bad as spending over 20k for tuition on a regular credit card like my friend did for grad school...eight years later, he's still paying on that darn thing...a 7 percent student loan is much easier (but not easy) to pay off 20k or more than a 19 percent credit card for that same amount

he should have taken the large lump sum stafford loan, but he was buying a class in grad school one at a time, and it didn't seem so bad then...but there are major hidden costs when one attends school for even a year, the biggest being the lost wages which takes years to make up for on top of the student loan

my med school freind told me his counselor told him if he graduated in his late 20s-early 30s like most MDs/dentists/vets do, the average age of paying off such a loan was one's late 50s...so it's something to think about

so there are "excuses" for those who say college is too expensive...thank god, at least in california, there is a massive jc/uc/cal state system...that is until ahnold terminates it ;)


Good News: the interest rate on Stafford Loans is about 3ish percent right now :D

And personally, I've already paid off the $21,000 I borrowed for my undergraduate and Graduate school. The longest they are to take is 10 years. I did it faster.

If the reason for getting so many people through college is because they make more money than they shouldn't complain about the $14,000 they borrow (I believe that is the limit for an undergrad). They will, according the reported statistics, get it back many times over ;)

[jefhatfield]

Good News: the interest rate on Stafford Loans is about 3ish percent right now :D

And personally, I've already paid off the $21,000 I borrowed for my undergraduate and Graduate school. The longest they are to take is 10 years. I did it faster.

If the reason for getting so many people through college is because they make more money than they shouldn't complain about the $14,000 they borrow (I believe that is the limit for an undergrad). They will, according the reported statistics, get it back many times over ;)

sure most will get it back many times over...in the long, long run...that 21k and that additional 18k you borrowed will be seen as a great "investment"

but you won't "break even" for a few years on that one, and when you are done paying off your 18k, then let me know...hopefully by then, what you make will all go to you, and not uncle stafford ;)

not in our generation or the next, realistically, but one day it would be nice if tuition free public school could be a bachelor's degree, not just a high school diploma

i remember seeing a futuristic sci-fi series and all the children had free education through the bachelor's degree level but i hope it won't take 500 years before that is a reality for all

[Voltron]

You are missing a key part of the program that Kerry has suggested. That is that it will help those that are not eligible for loans, grants, and scholarships keep their costs down. As you know college costs have outpaced the rate of inflation. Mostly due to underfunded Federal mandates.
But those who aren't eligible are middle income households who should pay for their own damn college. And even those folks are still eligible to receive student loans.

[zimv20]

But those who aren't eligible are middle income households who should pay for their own damn college.
...says the man getting a free ride.

if you're so anti-socialism, why didn't you turn down the money?

[Voltron]

...says the man getting a free ride.

if you're so anti-socialism, why didn't you turn down the money?
I aint stupid.

[zimv20]

I aint stupid.
you don't find it just a wee bit hypocritical? how are any of us supposed to even consider your political views when you say one thing but do another?

[Voltron]

you don't find it just a wee bit hypocritical? how are any of us supposed to even consider your political views when you say one thing but do another?
Also I see the benefit for the nation of a well educated populace.
Even if I didn't I wouldn't stupidly throw good money in the trash can that is being offered to me. However, my acceptance of such money would not change my opinions.

My opinion as stated on here is that it would be better if the "national government" did not financially support education and limited itself to the army and international trades, ie those things that require the need for a national government. And leave those things that can be best done at the state level, at the state level. Due to the fact that a well educated populace makes us more able to compete in the world market place I do find it reasonable for the "national government" to regulate education. Still financing education should be left to the individual and/or the states. Of course the "national government" should decrease taxes equal to the amount that they decrease aid to education so that individual states could raise theirs without too much hardship.

Thus, nothing hypocritical about it. I think National governments should limit them to those things they are needed to be concerned about and stay out of everything else.


On another note I have nothing against socialist states within the US borders. The idea is that National governments limit themselves and that gives individual states to try experimental ideas on a state level. Those that work will be copied by other states, maybe, and those that don't work will not.

[jefhatfield]

Also I see the benefit for the nation of a well educated populace.
Even if I didn't I wouldn't stupidly throw good money in the trash can that is being offered to me. However, my acceptance of such money would not change my opinions.

My opinion as stated on here is that it would be better if the "national government" did not financially support education and limited itself to the army and international trades, ie those things that require the need for a national government. And leave those things that can be best done at the state level, at the state level. Due to the fact that a well educated populace makes us more able to compete in the world market place I do find it reasonable for the "national government" to regulate education. Still financing education should be left to the individual and/or the states. Of course the "national government" should decrease taxes equal to the amount that they decrease aid to education so that individual states could raise theirs without too much hardship.

Thus, nothing hypocritical about it. I think National governments should limit them to those things they are needed to be concerned about and stay out of everything else.


On another note I have nothing against socialist states within the US borders. The idea is that National governments limit themselves and that gives individual states to try experimental ideas on a state level. Those that work will be copied by other states, maybe, and those that don't work will not.

i don't think a nationally funded college education would be nationally "regulated"

but if the states take the burden of a free college education, then so be it if it works...perhaps it could come down to the bill being paid for by some combination of the federal, state, and county governments...and for big cities and their governments, a dime thrown in from them

but like i have stated, i don't think this type of thing will happen that fast since most major progressive ideals, like affirmative action and the civil rights movement, take decades to resemble what its founders envisioned and excited a populace about in the first place

some smaller countries have a free college education but it would be erroneous to try and make a country as large as the united states mobilize as fast as them...heck, 'dem foreigners had betta cell phones first!!! ;)

****

as for middle income families paying for college themselves...our household can afford junior college, state college, and barely the university of california system...but most colleges are not among those three public systems and some majors, and often adequate to excellent programs, can only be found in a private college, which in my state are far more numerous

better funding for the three major publicly funded college systems in california would lead to better and more majors, and more locations...since most californians live closer to one of the hundreds of private colleges than they do to a state funded school

year by year, the prospect of college, even the public ones, are becoming more and more out of reach by a higher number of so called middle income families

and i just don't believe in college for better wages and more interesting jobs, it's a great enriching experience just about anybody can benefit from...most college kids i know who have graduated actually studied something more for personal interest than they did for the job market and better wages

there are so many reasons why, eventually, america should join the list of nations that offer a tuition free college education

[Chip NoVaMac]

But those who aren't eligible are middle income households who should pay for their own damn college. And even those folks are still eligible to receive student loans.

Middle class does not mean rich. In many areas of the country middle class is now very close to being the working poor.

And I see you missed the point yet again that Kerry's proposal was to help keep college affordable for all. This means more money available for loans, grants, and scholarships to help even more people. The $10 billion being talked about is for states that keep public college tuition increases to the rate of inflation.

Surely we can find $10 billion dollars that are being wasted on government contractors. Maybe like the V-22 Osprey program that has spent billions since the 1980's and is no closer to actual use.

I guess as long as one has theirs, there is no reason to look at bettering the community/nation for everyone else. Thats seems to be the attitude with many (not all) conservatives today.

[blackfox]

With reference to Neserk (and Voltrons') arguments...a little information for the discussion. At the school I currently attend for Graduate Studies, I know a few people (from the local bars), who by paying attention to the system, manage to secure themselves around $8000 per quarter in GRANTS. they do this by applying in the first few days of the Fiscal Year (and regular year), where there are a myriad of obscure state-based grant sources available, which dry up by the second week of the year.(oh, quarterly tuition is about $1600 FT)

Of course, as a Grad Student, I am not eligible...

So, in a way, they are correct...that even under the current system, if you search around you can find ways to pay for at least an undergraduate degree without incurring much debt. Of course, this will only apply to a small % of total students, and the vast majority will end up incurrung debt, though perhaps not a crippling amount.

This fact does not change my position, I am for as many people attending college as can be, and am a fan of some form of subsidy to lower tuition rates, or merit-based subsidys to deflect the costs of school to prospective students...

I just thought I'd share a little empirical nugget...

[tristan]

Voltron - Are you familiar with the economic concept of market failures? How does that fit into your political views?

I would say that education is clearly an example of a market failure, because if you look at countries that don't have free and compulsory education, or don't enforce it, you find a lot of child labor and poverty. The whole country is better off if kids are in school rather than working.

Now I think once you're 18, school should be your choice - but society is still better off if you go, and it's in their best interest to help you out as much as possible.

[Neserk]

sure most will get it back many times over...in the long, long run...that 21k and that additional 18k you borrowed will be seen as a great "investment"



But Kerry's only goal is for College Grads. The limit there is $14,000. And that should take a year or two to make up the difference. His plan is not for Graduate schools.

I just think he is too political in his decision instead of doing the research and looking at where the money needs to go and *why* women and minorities are undereducated. It isn't just money. Some people don't realize that while money helps it doesn't solve everything ;) There are lots of underlying social issues going on.

[Voltron]

But Kerry's only goal is for College Grads. The limit there is $14,000. And that should take a year or two to make up the difference. His plan is not for Graduate schools.

I just think he is too political in his decision instead of doing the research and looking at where the money needs to go and *why* women and minorities are undereducated. It isn't just money. Some people don't realize that while money helps it doesn't solve everything ;) There are lots of underlying social issues going on.
I think they should first worry about insuring that high school grads are fully qualified to enter college or they should not be high school grads.

[jefhatfield]

I think they should first worry about insuring that high school grads are fully qualified to enter college or they should not be high school grads.

i totally agree

i think too many high school grads are not qualified for college

i think reducing class size would be the single biggest issue in rectifying that

[Neserk]

i totally agree

i think too many high school grads are not qualified for college

i think reducing class size would be the single biggest issue in rectifying that


That would certainly help. You also have to keep in mind that college isn't for everyone. Intelligence comes in many different forms. And there are many ways to help young people be more successful in college.

The college I went to took the students who were borderline academically and brought them in during the summer. During that time they went through different classes etc. to help them learn study skills, time management, etc. etc. They created a support network for them amongst themselves. They also gave them peer tutors to help them through out the school year. These were real tutors, not the kind some give athletes who do their work. This works.

I also know a woman who went to 26 different schools from K-12. She told me she was totally unprepared for college. A teacher took her under her wing and helped her get prepared. She did a lot of post high school, college prep work and graduated from college last year. I had the privilege of subsitute teaching with her. She is an excellent teacher.

[Chip NoVaMac]

you don't find it just a wee bit hypocritical? how are any of us supposed to even consider your political views when you say one thing but do another?

Not taking a shot a Voltron personally. Yet I find conservatives want their cake and eat it too. They don't want social programs to help the people, but they are willing to accept social programs to help themselves. They will take the tax cuts, and teh grants for businesses.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I just think he is too political in his decision instead of doing the research and looking at where the money needs to go and *why* women and minorities are undereducated. It isn't just money. Some people don't realize that while money helps it doesn't solve everything ;) There are lots of underlying social issues going on.

Are you talking about what started the thread, or are you talking about his goals as outlined here: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/ ?

If you were referring to the reference in this thread, the $10 billion in money is to help keep college affordable by trying to limit tuition increases. It seems to me that getting more women and minorities in to college was not fully addressed.

[Neserk]

Are you talking about what started the thread, or are you talking about his goals as outlined here: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/ ?



What stated the thread.



If you were referring to the reference in this thread, the $10 billion in money is to help keep college affordable by trying to limit tuition increases. It seems to me that getting more women and minorities in to college was not fully addressed.


Nope. IMO, it is a "campaign promise" rather than something that will actually be done. If you don't look at what keeps them out you'll never get them in ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

What stated the thread.




Nope. IMO, it is a "campaign promise" rather than something that will actually be done. If you don't look at what keeps them out you'll never get them in ;)

Just wanted to be sure you weren't falling for the soundbite :)

You had me worried there. Though I had lost you to the Dark Side of the Force :D

[Neserk]

Thought I had lost you to the Dark Side of the Force :D


:D Never! :D