Hillary Clinton's new College plan: You won't need loans.

E-mails!! Whitewater!! Vince Foster!! BENGHAZI!!!!

$350 billion dollar plan

With an explanation on how she's going to do it too! Remember when candidates could actually explain their plans!

BENGHAZI!!!

[quote] this magnificent woman who truly seems to have her pulse on what is going on in the country at the moment.

Oh, brother. Someone has really, really consumed too much of the Kool-Aid.

R4 the Hillary-hate brigade...

THere's no reason to hate Hillary but the hate brigade just says, "You must hate her" and the sheep follow.

R5 How arrogant to assume that others are stupid.

So does this only apply to state schools? It should.

First tax hike and she doesn't even have the nod yet.

[quote]Mrs. Clinton would pay for the plan by capping the value of itemized deductions that wealthy families can take on their tax returns.

This will never work. Rich people have money to hire lawyers who can figure ways around tax codes. It's a lose-lose situation.

[quote]THere's no reason to hate Hillary...

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Anyone dumb enough to hate Hillary Clinton is too dumb for smart people to bother with.

Maybe she is looking to Europe, where in many countries students don't need big loans to educate themselves.

That's pretty good, to lay out a plan to help young people with school, and I am not a big fan of Hillary.

My favorite thing about Hillary is she's apparently willing to take on the vast evil Gun Lobby. That's a lot more courageous than Bernie Sanders. I don't think she gets credit for this.

R13, you bet your sweet ass Hillary wants her safety and her family's safety protected by dozens of men with dozens of guns. And she wants the taxpayers to pay for all those hired guns too even though she has enough money to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool with ten-dollar bills.

Stupid to spend $350 billion for a new middle class entitlement that won't work when she could spend $100 billion and eliminate poverty in America.

She doesn't have a "feel" for numbers, relative importance, or anything related to the economy.

After all, it isn't the cost of college which is destroying the middle class. It is the lack of meaningful well-paid employment.

I don't blame her R14. Nor is that inconsistent with wanting fewer guns in America.

[quote]After all, it isn't the cost of college which is destroying the middle class. It is the lack of meaningful well-paid employment.

Exactly, r16!!!

The whole point is Is it good for the country to educate the middle class and not make them go bankrupt because of student loans.

Yes it is. An educated middle class is what will propel this country's economy forward. That will work more than making sure rich people keep all the money instead of paying their fair share of taxes.

Hillary is right.

R10 please give a cogent reason why the right should hate Hillary.

R9 Reagan was able to cap the value of deductions.

Americans are so afraid of tax hikes but we pay the least in taxes compared to the rest of the developed world. In exchange we have to pay way more in personal funds to get what other countries' citizens get through taxes.

One example is healthcare. We pay at least 1/3rd more in personal money than people who live in single payer countries pay in taxes yet we deal with in network-out of network, co-pays, premiums, deductions, etc etc etc

Educating the middle class is all well and good, but it was moving manufacturing jobs, which paid well and sustained the middle class, offshore that continues to kill our country.

Even the well-educated are competing for fewer and fewer jobs, and don't get me started on what happened to the college educted IT workers with respect to offshoring and HB1 Visas.

R19, you also believe unicorns exist and they shoot rainbows out their asses.

Just look at our current economic state and you will see that college educated people cannot find meaningful, well-paying jobs. So, sure, let's saturate the market with college educated baristas!

Just like Obama's plan to close Guantanamo. How'd that go?

Not everybody should attend college. The reason college tuition is so high is because it has become a business and with more demand of college degrees, the price has gone up. I went to college with some real dummies who should not have been in college.

Anyone who attacks this plan is not a liberal.

Anyone who voted to approve the Patriot Act and to authorize the war in Iraq is not a liberal.

I totally agree, r28, but that doesn't make the policies behind this plan any less liberal.

I'm a liberal, R27, but the plan is stupid and will do NOTHING to change the employment problems we are getting deeper and deeper into. And, when the 1% won't/don't pick up slack, it will be my very overtaxed ass that will be forced to...and my household already paid for two degrees.

r30, if your ass is overtaxed, you're a whore darling.

I'm tired of the shuffling around of everyone's money. I'm tired of my money going to everyone else. She's losing me quick. The solution of dipping in others pockets to solve people's problems doesn't work for me anymore.

Yes, R31, you're probably right, but that still doesn't take away from the fact I am OVERTAXED and yes, I say that after having lived in London for years.

[quote]That's pretty good, to lay out a plan to help young people with school, and I am not a big fan of Hillary.

She didn't lay out a plan, she floated an idea. A plan would require funding, logistics, the creation of yet another government department. She didn't do any of that.

Obama already has a plan for free community college.

Yes, along with socialised medicine, most countries have very cheap higher education.

The great private universities in the USA have their multibillion dollar endowments. No problem there. The problem is the great public universities are too damned expensive. They are supposed to be STATE supported. Thats how its supposed to work. A number of amazing state university systems are decaying and its bewildering that the USA poured trillions into the military and useless wars rather than its own nation building.

[quote]its bewildering that the USA poured trillions into the military and useless wars rather than its own nation building.

Not if you own stock in defense industries or if you can exploit your former position into a lucrative post-government career.

But R35, most other counties dont have the "college experience" bullshit that the U.S. does with frats, sports teams etc. Outside the U.S. most college kids go to a nearby university, live at home or rent their own housing. I'd rather see our college party system reformed before any new taxes are considered.

Hillary is a SOCIALIST TO THE NTH DEGREE!!!!!!!! The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money! Besides I pay over thirty-thousand in school taxes every year yet the drop out rate is over fifty percent in my state. She needs to address that problem FIRST! She really doesn't care one way or another since she is just trying to buy votes!

She is a first-class lying bitch!!!

R26, I agree with you that not everyone who goes to college is a genius, and I've met a lot of college grads who can barely write or put two words together when they speak. And they're American.

When my sister and I were that age, our mom divorced and got sick soon after. College was off the table, period. Everything became about getting a job and supporting mom. My sister, a good student, had to quit after her first year and never went back. I never got to go at all. It would have made a big difference if we didn't need to worry about yet another bill hanging over our heads.

A lot of middle aged divorced women really need a chance for a career. They have kids to feed and can't do it and pay for college for themselves too. They get trapped in very low paying jobs with no way out. All we ever hear about is college for young kids with no responsibility. They're not the only ones that need it.

[R40] Did you consider joining the military and qualifying for the GI Bill?

The price of state universities went up NOT because of demand, (huh? R26) but simply because states defunded their university systems.

The annual cost to educated one student at my swiss university is about 45K. This isn't the primo federal tech universities by the way, rather a regional applied university. The canton and the federal government pick up the tab. The student pays less than 1K. As in many European countries. The poor students get some small additional funds for living, etc. The rich just have it easy. The poor students are not living high on the hog. Many are bootstrappers and they are pinching pennies (centimes).

Well, at least with minimal tuition, they get it done, and get jobs and stable lives, and don't have student debt.

I'm sure the cost per student at SUNY or UoC is about the same but the systems don't receive the money like they used to. Nelson Rockefeller POURED money into SUNY and created a top notch system. Then the funding did not keep up with inflation.

I know that the good state universities are not filled with illiterate dingbats. That's a strawman argument. The tuition is too damned high. We're talking about solid respectable state universities. Seems to me that if you have the qualifications to get in, it shouldn't break the bank.

R42, but do you have sports programs, frat houses and the likes like we have here in the U.S.?

Most true liberals will not be voting for this woman. You hillbots have a real problem that you refuse to acknowledge. This woman is UNELECTABLE!

[quote]I'm a liberal, [R27], but the plan is stupid and will do NOTHING to change the employment problems we are getting deeper and deeper into.

When you decrease or eliminate that debt, they have more money to buy cars, homes and other things. That spurs employment which in turn, increase taxes collected. Is it a 100% solution? No. But it's part of what needs to be a multi-pronged attack to fix the situation. But nothing of great import can happen with a Republican congress.

R43 of course not!

Tuition at UofC is about 13-14K a year, in-state. That is NOT including room and board, health insurance, books, etc. Out of state tuition, alone, no room and board, is 38k. Which proves my point.

I think the cost to educate one student per year at a university in the developed world is probably the same. Its just a matter of who is paying for it.

I'm just saying the tuition is too high in the US.

If jerky entitled middle class kids want to go to middling expensive lux private college, thats their problem they go into debt. I am all for Clinton's plan because maybe some of those asanine overpriced "good colleges" like NYU will go belly up. SHeesh, the stupidity of taking out loans to go to NYU and ilk.

But a smart ambitious kid should get through state universities in the US at a cheaper cost to them. Its not entitlement and pampering. Its just civilised and good for the country.

#generationfreeloaders

All hilliary is good at is #1) Lying and #2) Spending other peoples money!

I don't disagree with you about the Republicans, R45. But I think job creation and preservation, specifically bringing back good paying jobs that require little education, like manufacturing, is a much bigger issue for this country. We have moved way to far toward being a service economy where those jobs that don't benefit the already rich are commodities that get farmed out to whatever country pays the employee the least. No matter how well the economy does, there are only so many college level service jobs to go around.

R46, I agree with almost everything you said. Sadly though the job market is such where many employers only want those from "name" schools, regardless of the fact that many state schools are better.

R41, my sister was born with a heart defect and never could have gone in the military. She has had serious restrictions on her activity her entire life. I had a different health issue, so I couldn't either.

R50, a friend worked in a prestigious law firm, and she said they were told to throw away all resumes that didn't come from Harvard, Yale, and one other college. It was her job to open the mail, and she was told to throw them right in the trash without giving them to anyone for review. That's really disgusting if you think about it. They probably missed many highly qualified, talented candidates who couldn't afford to go to the "right" school.

What is Sanders plan?

College is a scam.

It has become one.

The building of stadiums, all the revenue reaped by the college-sports teams (particularly in football), and the passing of the costs to taxpayers … it's not difficult to see why there are people who think college tuition should be free. (Or, if not free, very cheap.)

R49 writes,

[quote]I don't disagree with you about the Republicans, [R45]. But I think job creation and preservation, specifically bringing back good paying jobs that require little education, like manufacturing, is a much bigger issue for this country. We have moved way to far toward being a service economy where those jobs that don't benefit the already rich are commodities that get farmed out to whatever country pays the employee the least. No matter how well the economy does, there are only so many college level service jobs to go around.

R49 is correct.

An example of a very good-paying job is one that many (and this likely counts the overwhelming majority of Datalounge.com posters) do not want is … a plumber.

A lot of money has been wasted on higher education, for particular studies, which were not put to use (or much use) by the graduate.

Congratulations, of course, for having earned the degree!

But it doesn't mean shit if you're earnings are minimum wage (or barely above).

When I went to college, a professor once stated that some people have the wrong idea about why colleges exist. He stated that they are for the purpose of higher education and that colleges do not exist as some branch of finding employment. That was over 25 years ago. It's a different country now! If that professor is still alive, and would be asked about the purpose of colleges, I don't believe he would be singing that same tune today.

[italic]Revise:[/italic]

[quote]But it doesn't mean shit if you're earnings are minimum wage (or barely above).

But it doesn't mean shit if [bold]your[/bold] earnings are minimum wage (or barely above).

I know the difference. But, sometimes, I submit without proofreading. (I apologize for that.)

Oh great. Another plan for FREE STUFF!

I want a politician as smart as my dad. He told me those that offer you something free with one hand are ripping you off with the other.

"If something has no cost, it has no value."

[quote] An educated middle class is what will propel this country's economy forward. That will work more than making sure rich people keep all the money instead of paying their fair share of taxes.

Our middle class is well educated. Giving them more education will not propel our economy forward. Most of our jobs have been permanently outsourced to other countries. What we have left are a lot of shitty jobs that people are overqualified for. So many people have college diplomas and the only jobs available to them are entry level jobs that really don't require a college degree. The only thing that is going to help the American economy is to bring back manufacturing jobs and other jobs that have been outsourced. Technology improvements will do away with a lot of American jobs in the next two decades. Of course once that technology is stable and available to most companies at a reasonable cost, those jobs that brought in the new technology will be outsourced to other countries. The only jobs America is going to have are ones that can not be outsourced or will be too costly to outsource. One of our biggest problems (according to Bill Gates) is the technological improvements in the next decade that will do away with many low level, unskilled jobs

I like to picture all the people arguing that the middle and lower classes don't deserve college educations wearing top hats and monocles, like the Monopoly guy.

The manufacturing jobs aren't coming back. Thats like expecting your ex to return. Once its over, its over.

[quote] Mrs. Clinton would pay for the plan by capping the value of itemized deductions that wealthy families can take on their tax returns.

Wealthy families/corporations were the ones who essentially bribed politicians to get these deductions made into law in the first place. Hillary can cap any and all taxes, but that won't stop new tax codes and deductions for the rich will be made into law the next day. It will end up being paid for on the backs of the middle class.

And I don't want to pay for other people's children to go to college. If you have kids and you want them to go to college, you need to pay for it. My taxes are already paying for their first 13 years of education.

Going forward, the 1% must get less of the pie. It's not complicated. Hillary won't touch the 1%.

This eye-opening video shows the astonishing level of wealth inequality in the USA>

The rich are MUCH MUCH richer than almost everyone realizes. Obscenely so.

We need to CONFISCATE wealth from the One Per Cent by any means necessary.

Our society cannot last unless we do something drastic to remedy the situation. .

confiscate? no. there's nothing we can do about what people already have. we can only legislate so that going forward less can can go to the very few. there was slightly less wealth inequality in the early decades of the 20th c. this gap was closed through taxes and increasing power of the working class and middle class. there was a reasonably paid working class as well as middle class.

r62, I'd love to hear your plan to confiscate assets/property/money. Would probably be a good read.

[quote]We need to CONFISCATE wealth from the One Per Cent by any means necessary.

That's what Barack Obama was *supposed* to be doing. That is, before he got lazy and went to the golf course every weekend.

For starters, R64, we need a transaction tax on every transaction on Wall Street.

Ah yes, negatively impacting the stock market is a great way to deal with the economy. You know there are millions upon millions of Americans that hold stocks, bonds, equity, mutual funds, 401ks, etc. What do you think your transaction tax would do to them?

I'm for young people going into public service for a couple of years, not necessarily the military. That way they could earn their degree.

Bringing back manufacturing is a national security issue. If we were attacked by another country, we couldn't manufacture our way out of it any more. We would be helpless. Without supplies, we would be defeated. If we go to war with China, how can we buy all our tanks in China?

It will take a strong Democratic President to come up with incentives to bring manufacturing back here. The Republicans want a peasant class of starving, desperate unemployed, to drive down labor costs and eliminate safety concerns. They don't want a middle class.

We literally won WWII because not only were we supplying ourselves, we were supplying England with ships and planes, and through Lend Lease, even providing uniforms and other equipment to the Soviets. The Germans themselves said when they saw the huge amount of equipment we brought into France, they realized they would lose. We had more stuff than they did, and we brought it across the sea. England would have lost to the Nazis without our Lend Lease ships and matériel. Without England, we wouldn't have had a base. Most of Europe would have had to negotiate a peace with Hitler, and a lot of it might still be Nazi occupied. Republicans "forget" any history that doesn't suit them.

R67, a transaction tax on Wall Street is one of the only fair solutions we have left. And yes, they can well afford to pay it.

We need to do away with government of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich.

That "transaction tax" is only going to get passed down to those of us lower down on the food chain. Do you really think they are just going to absorb a tax and not send trading costs/commissions through the roof? That would virtually guarantee blocking people from entering the stock market as small investors.

I imagine our entire way of life will collapse into chaos before we ever come up with a way to get the super-rich to do their duty by society. There is no such thing as a benevolent billionaire.

Lots of European nations tax their rich. Many of them dabble with moving to tax shelters but somehow socialism plods on in Europe. I think the states still get more than not taxing them, which results in nothing. Zero.

We just need to move on to a flat tax, no deductibles, destroy the IRS, and move on with life.

[quote] We just need to move on to a flat tax, no deductibles, destroy the IRS, and move on with life

That will decimate the poorest people in our country. Can you imagine someone who earns $8 to $10/hour paying 8% income tax? And not getting any type of tax return. People with children (and almost all low income people have children) depend on their tax returns in order to live. Some of the lower income people I have worked with earn $8 an hour and get a tax return of about $7,300 because they have kids. It pisses me off because I'm lucky if I get $300 back a year. These people only earn about $16,000 a year. They don't pay $7,300 in income tax in 4 years, but they get that much back every year in a tax return. And even with a flat tax, rich people would find ways to shelter their income and avoid paying a flat tax

She's a fucking Socialist. There is no way that this can be paid for.

Hillary's way of "buying" the entitled younger generations vote, just so that her socialist goals are met for achieving government control of higher education. The next step is communism! Wake up America!

This is total BS. She's just saying this to get votes.

She must be so desperate...

R5 Right. It is the anti-Hillary people on DL who are the sheep.