Speaking Tuesday at Johnson State College in Vermont—on the same day data from the New York Fed showed student-loan delinquencies are on the rise—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called for a "revolution" in the way higher education is funded in the U.S.
Golly gee, Bernie - stealing the GP platform, too ...
At the same time Scott Walker is proposing deep cuts to UW, to the approval of conservative voices and Republican voters. He doesn't think he's going to lose votes over this either. Who approves of this restriction? The solidly Republican working class voters of Wisconcin who don't seem to mind if their sons and daughters are priced out of a college education. Even 40% of union members vote for Walker. Voters of Wisconsin, you get what you deserve. As for Dems who are sympathetic to what Sanders proposes, how much sympathy do you have for a working class that beats itself with a stick?
It seems a shame a grown man would choose to move deck chairs around all day. Especially when he is not even allowed to arrange them to his liking.
It is strange conventional education has not evolved. Using an arbitrary measure of time via age must be evolved, a long with funding and the fundamental structure. A good example: every Tuesday was spaghetti for lunch at my high school. Kids fill up on carbs via noodles and are then expected to perform while sitting in a class room, maybe a few got lucky and had gym class after. However for the majority, students cannot burn carbs off by sitting in a class room. Excessive carbs make an individual tired and sluggish. This is a fundamental prob which should have been addressed years ago. It comes down to $ and what the pub. school can afford to provide to feed the kids and what there parents can afford etc. Pub edu has become a race to the bottom.
Considering the future of man is dependent on education one has to conclude politicians, particularly conservative, have no interest in the future.
College education is hugely expensive. Students entering fields such as education, social work and art have few prospects for colossal incomes after graduation. Students entering the fields of business, medicine, law have entirely different future earning prospects. How about a graduated scale of tuitions? How about those who elect economically disadvantaged career disciplines receive a discount--and those who go on to become surgeons and hedge fund managers pay a different tuition rate? I won't get into other drivers for exorbitant tuition such as coaches salaries or such as the ridiculously light teaching loads on professors--vs. public school teachers who see 150 students per day every day all year.
Bernie Sanders is likely the very best person we could possibly select for President in 2016. His common sense approach to directly set the nation on a path of a real recovery is the only one out there, not filled with holes by any dependence upon the 1%. He has for decades pulled people up, supporting all the policies that have a directly helpful direction for The People. The student debt is just one area he is loyal to changing. I will be pushing for him, that is for sure. I do respect E Warren, but she needs to stay in the Congress right now, get some more years of experience, and to succeed at efforts that put Wall St and the Financial areas of governing in a proper path, which is not the case just yet. We have a long way to go. We need her in the Senate. Of course we need Bernie in the Senate, too, but he has many more years of experience and of standing firm on the right policies.
Are you talking about the Green Party that holds no offices and wins no elections and has no money to run elections and has no credibility with the American voters? That Green Party? They have good ideas but that's about it. For better or mostly worse we have a two (2) Party System. Reality can be a bitch.
Well, actually the Greens do, and have, hold/held offices - check with Richmond Cal. e.g. or are you not familiar with that? Granted, not a lot, but not none ...
So if they have good ideas but win no elections, whose fault is that? When they are on the ballot, but we don't choose them, whose fault is that? If we have a "2 party system" it is not because we have no other choices, it is not because TINA, it is not because 3rd parties "can't win" - anyone on a ballot can win if enough folks vote for her/him - if we have only 2 parties who pass control back and forth for appearances sake, leaving their corporate sponsors in control, whose fault is that - Do you like the duopoly? Do you vote for either of them?