It's not calling for free education, but debt-free education at public universisties. Of course the problem varies by state - mostly depending on how much money the states use to support their university system and how tht money is spent. I can tell you that if I were sending a kid to school today, it would be cheaper to send him or her to WVU as an out-of-state student than to send that kid to CU as an in-state student - not by a ton, but still cheaper.I can't way to see how Hillary is going to pull that off.
More and more the left is for people who believe in rainbows, unicorns, and STD free strippers
Do you feel the same about public education? I have been a proponent or raising the tax of the parent of any student who has to repeat a grade. Increase the tax by the cost of one year education. That would give parent incentive to invest a little time assisting the child to study. It would possibly remove the necessity of "social promotions".A lot of employers will loan you money for school and then if you get an 'A' you don't have to pay it back, if you get a 'B' you have to pay 10%, 'C' 25%, D or worse, 100%.
I have concerns about a system in which it is just free for everybody, but could get behind a system that's prorated to some degree. If you do great, you don't have to pay it back, if you do pretty well you only have to pay back some.
Need to adjust the interest rate too. Banks shouldn't get money at lower interest rates than those that want to go to school.
Is that a play on words? Distinguish between free education and debt free education.It's not calling for free education, but debt-free education at public universisties. Of course the problem varies by state - mostly depending on how much money the states use to support their university system and how tht money is spent. I can tell you that if I were sending a kid to school today, it would be cheaper to send him or her to WVU as an out-of-state student than to send that kid to CU as an in-state student - not by a ton, but still cheaper.
No play on words. Debt free means that you pay as you go - free means that you don't pay. I don't know enough about her plan to know her exact intentions, but what I have read about it says that it would be debt free at public institutions. How you get there is the big question - do you subsidize the public colleges and universities to allow their tuition to drop far enough that traditional assistance programs (Pell grants for example) would cover costs that are above the means of the student and/or student's family? That's one way. Do you force the states to do that instead? Maybe a mix of the 2? I'll say that I do think it's more than a little crazy that I haven't paid taxes in WV (excluding sales taxes) since I was 23 years old, and I've been paying taxes in CO for over a decade. That I could send a kid to WVU cheaper than sending a kid to a flagship university in the state where I live seems insane.Is that a play on words? Distinguish between free education and debt free education.
Pay as you go is a liberal plan? Hell, there is no give away there. Can't be the plan she is offering. Dems normally compete to see who can give away the most. We need some research here.No play on words. Debt free means that you pay as you go - free means that you don't pay. I don't know enough about her plan to know her exact intentions, but what I have read about it says that it would be debt free at public institutions. How you get there is the big question - do you subsidize the public colleges and universities to allow their tuition to drop far enough that traditional assistance programs (Pell grants for example) would cover costs that are above the means of the student and/or student's family? That's one way. Do you force the states to do that instead? Maybe a mix of the 2? I'll say that I do think it's more than a little crazy that I haven't paid taxes in WV (excluding sales taxes) since I was 23 years old, and I've been paying taxes in CO for over a decade. That I could send a kid to WVU cheaper than sending a kid to a flagship university in the state where I live seems insane.
If you are debt free, that's what it has to mean. I don't think that means that there is no give away.Pay as you go is a liberal plan? Hell, there is no give away there. Can't be the plan she is offering. Dems normally compete to see who can give away the most. We need some research here.
Do you feel the same about public education? I have been a proponent or raising the tax of the parent of any student who has to repeat a grade. Increase the tax by the cost of one year education. That would give parent incentive to invest a little time assisting the child to study. It would possibly remove the necessity of "social promotions".
I have concerns about a system in which it is just free for everybody, but could get behind a system that's prorated to some degree. If you do great, you don't have to pay it back, if you do pretty well you only have to pay back some.
On the surface, that's an interesting thought, but it doesn't make a lot of sense because everybody in the community is paying taxes for the schools whether they have a child in the school or not. Collectively it makes very little difference if a kid repeats a grade. All 10,000 (or whatever) people are paying the same taxes for the schools whether there are 10 kids or 30 kids in a particular grade.
Class size is where that will come into play, and my children get bigger classes because Johnny failed 5th grade 3 times.
I would not disagree with your assessment as "A Kid", but when you have several kids, it would probably require additional personnel. You did not address the social promotion as an issue. Do you agree, disagree or not know enough about the issue to make an assessment? I think it is a tremendous problem to advance a student who is not prepared for more advanced studies. It is a prediction that they will struggle in the future and retard the advancement of the entire class as they move thru the system.On the surface, that's an interesting thought, but it doesn't make a lot of sense because everybody in the community is paying taxes for the schools whether they have a child in the school or not. Collectively it makes very little difference if a kid repeats a grade. All 10,000 (or whatever) people are paying the same taxes for the schools whether there are 10 kids or 30 kids in a particular grade.
I am not asking everyone to be taxed more - just the offender parent. Why should everyone be penalized because that parent/guardian is falling short in parenting? Kid needs incentive or assistance, the responsible parent should be the one required to perform.Of course it does, but I'm not sure what that has to do with taxing people more because the kid failed ... like I said, there are thousands in the community already getting taxed that don't have kids in school at all.
I would not disagree with your assessment as "A Kid", but when you have several kids, it would probably require additional personnel.
You did not address the social promotion as an issue. Do you agree, disagree or not know enough about the issue to make an assessment? I think it is a tremendous problem to advance a student who is not prepared for more advanced studies. It is a prediction that they will struggle in the future and retard the advancement of the entire class as they move thru the system.
I am not asking everyone to be taxed more - just the offender parent. Why should everyone be penalized because that parent/guardian is falling short in parenting? Kid needs incentive or assistance, the responsible parent should be the one required to perform.
I am not asking everyone to be taxed more - just the offender parent.
"unless you had quadruplets", quote. Why do you always have to make some wise assed statement to obfuscate from the issue? Do you not have the mental capacity to engage in civil exchange with any of your responses? What pleasure do you derive out of such childish antics?Assuming they are all in the same grade, but unless you had quadruplets that's not likely. I don't think it's something that would happen enough to try to make some sweeping change to address it.
I didn't address it, because until now it wasn't mentioned (unless there is a post I missed somewhere). Advancing a kid that doesn't deserve it is like a woman faking orgasms. It makes somebody feel good about their performance when they shouldn't and devalues the experience for everybody down the road by providing no indication that improvement is needed.
Kids shouldn't graduate HS if they don't even know enough to pass a grade school exit test. (if such a thing existed) I agree with you completely on this point.
Damn, what came over you? You ask civil questions that could be discussed. That would be a hell of a lot more pleasant to engage in that type discourse. Therefore, apology offered for prior response.I know that's not what you are saying. What I'm saying is that the tax burden for the kids in school is spread among everybody in the community whether they have kids in school or not.
So, if you only paid taxes if you had a kid in school, then it may make sense to tax double for failing, but I'm also thinking of the administration of such a system being a total nightmare. There are intended consequences. What if the parent just pulls the kid out of school instead of paying the extra tax? That's a huge burden on society for the entirety of that kid's life because he'll never support himself.
What if the parents can't afford the extra tax? Throw them in jail?
Maybe you're assuming that if hte parents know that is a real risk that they will address it, but that assumes that the parents are responsible, forward thinking people. That is probably a huge assumption if the kid is failing. (assuming there are no medical reasons the kid is struggling, like dyslexia or something)
Had never given consideration to that scenario? If the parent/guardian is not on the tax rolls, it would be a bit hard to make a connection for a target. Would probably be solved the same way as now and that is distributing that cost to all taxpayers.Aren't most schools funded by property tax? What if the parent(s) do not own property in the community? Would their landlord have to take the additional tax burden? Where is the incentive for the parents in that scenario, unless the landlord tacked the additonal tax burden onto their rent?
"unless you had quadruplets", quote. Why do you always have to make some wise assed statement to obfuscate from the issue? Do you not have the mental capacity to engage in civil exchange with any of your responses? What pleasure do you derive out of such childish antics?
I appreciate the explanation. Of course, I was not really suggesting one kid would make a difference. When you have 10-25% of each class deficient, that is when the problem arises. Some school districts report the third grade as the most problematic. They report that up to 50% are given social promotions. If that group were retained, it would not only require more personnel, but could also require additional classrooms. Passing via social promotion would obviously create a problem teaching them at the 4th grade level and beyond. My suggestion has been "the higher they go, the behinder they get".I honestly have no idea why that statement would ruffle your feathers so much. Was it the "you"? I wasn't directing it at you personally, what I meant was "unless somebody had quadruplets" their kids wouldn't be in the same grade and therefore wouldn't necessarily require extra staff. The difference between 20 and 21 kids is not that great, but if it was quadruplets it would mean the difference between 20 and 24.
I know tone is difficult to infer in this medium, but indignation is really not an appropriate response to my intended tone. If we were face to face speaking, you would easily see that I have no hostile, childish, or disrespectful intent. (most of the time I don't have those intentions ... if attacked I will respond in kind at times ... I'm trying to not even do that as much)
When you have 10-25% of each class deficient, that is when the problem arises. Some school districts report the third grade as the most problematic. They report that up to 50% are given social promotions.