2016 Election Thread

[PseudoSABR]

Another point.  Industries probably over utilize universities as an outsource for their research and development.  It makes sense for industry to allow universities to buy the super expensive machines and then assess if theirs any marketable value.    

 

When I was part of English Departments, I remember talking with the Chair and he said that our department's tuition alone paid for its operational costs four-fold, but since we were housed in the Arts & Sciences, the excess went on to fund the entire college.   

 

I'd also be in favor for a huge increase in tuition for international students.  I fear too often people from other countries use our higher education system as a means to take root here, and inevitably take jobs their American peers would be similarly qualified for.  Medicine might be a prime example of this, but maybe we really do have a lack of qualified doctors here.   Just more food for thought.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Having a whole generation of Americans indebted to their education so that they end up paying twice as much in interest over their lifetimes hurts not only the individual, but deprives the economy of those dollars that could actually buy goods and services instead paying interest rates.  

 

Part of the problem with current generation not getting the most out of higher education is that their primary and secondary schools don't teach them the skills to succeed at the university, and often universities are forced to dumb down their processes as a result.   Moving away from standardized testing I think would be an important step.   Finding a new way to fund schools other than property taxes would be another good start; I know some states pool all the property taxes, and this might be one solution.  As much as we want problems like education solved locally, I fear, too often, that localized solution often involves inequitable solutions.  

 

All this said, I wouldn't have been able to go to college without access to loans.  My folks made too much (barely) to qualify for a pell-grant, but still couldn't pay for my tuition.  But the truth is, I misspent a lot of that loan money, and while it would have sucked, I should have been more frugal with my hosing, food, and incidental costs.   

 

I highlighted some of the thoughts I most wanted to respond to.  The first one is spot on.  People wonder why car sales and house sales are down....well you've basically deprived a generation of buying power until they are in their 30s and 40s.  We've pushed that whole picture of purchasing power back at least a decade.  It's having a tremendously negative effect on the economy as you rightly said.  

 

I would push back on the second point.  I think people not in education hear this sort of thing and think it's more relevant than it is.  Standardized tests are not that big of a deal.  There are too many stakes attached to them for sure, but the truth is some form of standardized assessment is a necessity.  We just have to stop attaching dollars to it and a number of other consequences to both schools and students.  But we are also teaching things sooner to kids now than they ever were previously.  The issue is more societal - what is truly important for a college student to know?  How do we teach that?

 

Don't kid yourself into thinking that universities have been dumbed down by necessity.  They've purposefully dumbed down the rigor of college.  They have softened the content, told teachers not to push back on students, encourage teachers to pass their students regardless of their performance.  The truth is, they realize they have to keep handing out degrees or people will stop dipping into the trough to hand them money.  This isn't a "we had to dumb down, kids just can't handle this", this was "the only way we can keep bringing in these escalating tuition costs is to embrace a lower quality student and ensure we never get a reputation that your money was wasted"

 

I mean, think about it: What do college invest all this money in?  Their assistant professors?  Higher quality teachers?  Or into big stadiums, fancy dorms, spiffy signs, and other cosmetic crap that makes it seem like a good investment?  This is almost entirely university driven in terms of the problem we have.

 

As for that last point, I was in the same boat so I appreciate the need to ahve money available to those with the ability and the need.  The problem is we have to tailor that available money in such a way that it doesn't encourage exploitation and misuse.

 

Handing all universities and students a federal subsidy is the exact opposite of that.  We have to go back, undo the Great Society model of stupidity, and start with something that makes both fiscal sense and allows us to maximize the intelligence and ability of our populace.

[Willihammer]

 

Yeah, then cap it at like 50k a year for 10 years. Someone that rich (making like 10+ million a year) isn't going to give up their US citizEnship IMO

Force people to have a 2.8 or something to continue recieving it

The Oregon Pay-It-Forward idea is predicated on a flat income tax of 3-4% income tax for 5 years, times the number of years attended university. So graduating in 4 years from a university would require a ~3.5% income tax over 20 years. According to the Oregon State U estimates, this plan would lose money for the first 20 years. I believe that is even after the assumption that your $10m / year grads would stay and pay back ~$7m over 20 years (7m is 3.5% of $200m). If you are going to put an arbitrary cap on it to keep people in state, where would you make up the funding?

[Willihammer]

 

A few thoughts on loans and funding higher education.

 

I'm just thinking out loud and really haven't researched the viability of any of these ideas, but I'm curious to know what others think.

 

I think loans, in general are a horrible way to finance higher ed.  It gives too much leeway to both students and universities to misspend that money in all kinds of ways.  

 

So one idea I've been shuttling around in my head is to offer tuition-free education financed by a tax on post-graduates who meet certain income standards.   So those who utilize the higher education system opt-in to a later tax provided they get jobs--this will emphasize universities to educate towards actual employment to keep their financing as robust as possible.   It would also keep students from having a trough to spend not only on tuition, but anything under the sun.  I realize that this alone wouldn't be enough to fund all of higher education, so another vehicle of finance would be necessary.  

 

Having a whole generation of Americans indebted to their education so that they end up paying twice as much in interest over their lifetimes hurts not only the individual, but deprives the economy of those dollars that could actually buy goods and services instead paying interest rates.  

 

While I don't think total loan forgiveness for everyone is really a solution, perhaps eliminating the interest rate debt all together would be a good step.  It would be a lot more palatable if people could just pay down their primary debt, without the strange interest rules that keep that debt growing while you pay it back. 

 

I also agree with ideas that want to make vocational education more affordable if not free.  There's probably a host of technological jobs that could be served by a vocational education as much as they could a university education. 

 

Part of the problem with current generation not getting the most out of higher education is that their primary and secondary schools don't teach them the skills to succeed at the university, and often universities are forced to dumb down their processes as a result.   Moving away from standardized testing I think would be an important step.   Finding a new way to fund schools other than property taxes would be another good start; I know some states pool all the property taxes, and this might be one solution.  As much as we want problems like education solved locally, I fear, too often, that localized solution often involves inequitable solutions.  

 

All this said, I wouldn't have been able to go to college without access to loans.  My folks made too much (barely) to qualify for a pell-grant, but still couldn't pay for my tuition.  But the truth is, I misspent a lot of that loan money, and while it would have sucked, I should have been more frugal with my hosing, food, and incidental costs.   

The Pay it Forward idea has been talked about in this thread. I do not believe its actually been implemented in Oregon or anywhere else because of the challenges it presents (correct me if I'm wrong). The most obvious challenge being how to collect a 3-4% income tax on people who could simply move out of state to avoid them. 

 

Your other ideas, controlling how student loans are spent, forgiving student debt, making trade schools free - all sound like a lot of fun. How would you pay for them?

[Willihammer]

 

There are some things the free market shouldn't be used for, chief among them are health care, education, and the military.  

 

Why the right continues to understand that about one of them, but not the others is always baffling to me.

Agree on healthcare and defense but not sold on higher ed. There is inelastic demand and to an extent its a public good but higher ed doesn't suffer from information disadvantages of health or defense and the free market, with some oversight, could lead to the most desirable outcomes, at least in avoiding the insolvency that the current system of state and federal aid has created.

[TheLeviathan]

Agree on healthcare and defense but not sold on higher ed. There is inelastic demand and to an extent its a public good but higher ed doesn't suffer from information disadvantages of health or defense and the free market, with some oversight, could lead to the most desirable outcomes, at least in avoiding the insolvency that the current system of state and federal aid has created.

I was speaking about pre-college education in this remark.

 

Demand is only inelastic because we created that problem 50 years ago. We should make vocational training free, that's fine because that's the sh-t we're stuck in now.

[Hrbowski]

So we have Donald Trump saying Cruz isn't an evangelical, Santorum and Huckabee saying he isn't a social conservative etc. It seems like they are getting pretty desperate.

[drjim]

Who could have ever foreseen the Republican primary turning into a clown show?

[mikecgrimes]

Anyone see Carly Fiorino's idiotic tweet about rooting for Iowa over Stanford in the Rose Bowl.  I have to assume it was a staffer, but she should just get out of the race because it's impossible to respect her.

[biggentleben]

Anyone see Carly Fiorino's idiotic tweet about rooting for Iowa over Stanford in the Rose Bowl. I have to assume it was a staffer, but she should just get out of the race because it's impossible to respect her.

Can't be as bad as her congratulatory tweet to the Hawkeyes for winning the Big Ten just before the Spartans scored the game winning touchdown.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Can't be as bad as her congratulatory tweet to the Hawkeyes for winning the Big Ten just before the Spartans scored the game winning touchdown.

 

Didn't see that, but thats just a mistake that is easily excusable.  From my standpoint stating she was rooting for Iowa over her Alma mater should be politically career ending.   Basically she just said I will play politics no matter what, I will go against long held beliefs for any meaningless purpose I come up with.  I now put her in the group of Bush and Trump as people I will not vote for if they get the nomination, not that she had any chance anyways.

[stringer bell]

It wasn't Fiorina who congratulated the Hawkeyes,

[biggentleben]

FFS, I cheer for teams over the Gophers at times as well. Doesn't change my integrity. Pretty poor reason to bash her when there are so many good ones. She's been cheering on Iowa since October via Twitter. I'm sure there's some political motive as well, but she didn't suddenly change alliances for votes for the Rose Bowl.

[mikecgrimes]

 

FFS, I cheer for teams over the Gophers at times as well. Doesn't change my integrity. Pretty poor reason to bash her when there are so many good ones. She's been cheering on Iowa since October via Twitter. I'm sure there's some political motive as well, but she didn't suddenly change alliances for votes for the Rose Bowl.

 

You might be a Democrat who can find a lot of reasons to vote against her, but I have no major reason prior to this to dislike or distrust her.  She can cheer on Iowa every step of the way against every team accept one.  As for you cheering against the Gophers did you attend and graduate from the University of Minnesota?  Anyways I'm about to drive 50 miles to a college hockey game of the school I graduated from.  I've been rooting for Arizona State every weekend since the start of the season by the way, not this weekend.

[biggentleben]

 

You might be a Democrat who can find a lot of reasons to vote against her, but I have no major reason prior to this to dislike or distrust her.  She can cheer on Iowa every step of the way against every team accept one.  As for you cheering against the Gophers did you attend and graduate from the University of Minnesota?  Anyways I'm about to drive 50 miles to a college hockey game of the school I graduated from.  I've been rooting for Arizona State every weekend since the start of the season by the way, not this weekend.

 

I graduated from the U of M and played football for the Gophers. I've still cheered for other teams in my lifetime when playing the Gophers, specifically when South Dakota State was building their program and trying to get things going and the Gophers were a down team anyway. I was hoping for the Jacks to get the win to help the profile of their program, and I certainly don't think that'd call into question my love or loyalty to the program that I willingly gave hours upon hours of my life (and arguably my "normal" eyesight).

 

I'm also not a Democrat. I'm actually currently registered as a Republican, though I classify myself as an Independent. I'll very likely edit my registration depending on the primary I choose to vote in for 2016. Many of my very conservative friends have numerous reasons for disliking her before all of this stuff.

[mikecgrimes]

So you couldn't cheer for South Dakota the other 11 weeks of the year?  And you played for the Gophers?  Theres a lot wrong with Gopher athletics, I can't help but laugh at how pathetic that is.  I think it would have been cool if Arizona State beat St Cloud State this weekend if somehow it happened, but even when it was 7-0 I was hoping for more goals cause other programs aren't a major concern of mine as they wouldn't be for anyone with an ounce of loyalty.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't care how long ago she was rooting for them, this is pretty obvious pandering. 

[biggentleben]

I don't care how long ago she was rooting for them, this is pretty obvious pandering.

Regardless, it's not something that should definitively make you not vote for her. It's pretty minor overall.

[biggentleben]

So you couldn't cheer for South Dakota the other 11 weeks of the year? And you played for the Gophers? Theres a lot wrong with Gopher athletics, I can't help but laugh at how pathetic that is. I think it would have been cool if Arizona State beat St Cloud State this weekend if somehow it happened, but even when it was 7-0 I was hoping for more goals cause other programs aren't a major concern of mine as they wouldn't be for anyone with an ounce of loyalty.

I typically cheer for South Dakota State (but not USD!) and the Gophers. When they play, I have to choose who I'd rather see win. I remember the once in football when I was cheering for SDSU because my brother was a student coach and they had a big recruit visiting that next week, so coming off a win over a Big Ten team would help with the recruiting, and that season was during the Brewster years, so the Gophers were rough. There were probably other times I went Jacks over Gophers, though, in multiple sports, but the majority of the time I cheer maroon and gold.

 

But you call Gopher athletics pathetic for that, yet my cousin and I have discussed St. Cloud vs. Gopher hockey games, and he's always cheering for the Gophers, yet he was a four-year letterman on the Huskies baseball team. What's that say about St. Cloud athletics then?

 

Sometimes where you attended school is simply that - where you attended school. You hold some additional fondness for the school of course, but not cheering for them above all others is not some sign of moral repugnance.

[Squirrel]

Come on guys. Take it to the college football thread and quit trying to demean who someone cheers for.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Regardless, it's not something that should definitively make you not vote for her. It's pretty minor overall.

 

I don't know, as a single issue no it shouldn't sway you, but it does say something about her character.

[biggentleben]

 

Come on guys. Take it to the college football thread and quit trying to demean who someone cheers for.

 

That's rather my point.

[biggentleben]

 

I don't know, as a single issue no it shouldn't sway you, but it does say something about her character.

 

And in four months, we'll start hearing front-runners suddenly and drastically shifting on major issues to pander to centrist voters. What's that say about their characters? They're politicians attempting to get elected. My point was that she at least had some bit of history cheering for the Hawkeyes on the season, starting when they were one of the few remaining undefeated teams.

[twinsnorth49]

"Who hates Iowa"?!

[biggentleben]

"Who hates Iowa"?!

Iowans?

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

 

And in four months, we'll start hearing front-runners suddenly and drastically shifting on major issues to pander to centrist voters. What's that say about their characters? They're politicians attempting to get elected. My point was that she at least had some bit of history cheering for the Hawkeyes on the season, starting when they were one of the few remaining undefeated teams.

 

Thats great and up until this week the pandering probably gained her 8 or 10 votes.  If she liked Iowa football for any reason outside of political pandering it would probably be a good idea to demonstrate that, otherwise she's done and might as well drop out of the race rather then finish last in Iowa as the 8 or 10 Iowa fans the pandering helped sway won't even support her now.

 

If this wasn't significant it wouldn't have made all the Sunday shows.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And in four months, we'll start hearing front-runners suddenly and drastically shifting on major issues to pander to centrist voters. What's that say about their characters? They're politicians attempting to get elected. My point was that she at least had some bit of history cheering for the Hawkeyes on the season, starting when they were one of the few remaining undefeated teams.

 

You think that "history" is really any different?  She was very clearly pandering from the get go.  

 

Cheap, stupid things like this just stink of a candidate being an empty husk.  

[twinsnorth49]

Iowans?

And you played for the Gophers?

[biggentleben]

 

And you played for the Gophers?

 

Yup. I also know many Iowans who don't exactly like Iowa LOL.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Iowans?

That made me lol.