Clinton proposes $350B College Affordability Plan

2015-08-11T08:47:49-04:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/10/clinton-touts-350b-college-affordability-plan/

I can't tell if the $350B is a one-time cost, the cost for the program across the FYDP, or an annual cost.
I don't expect this new government (taxpayer) spending has a corresponding cut anywhere, so it either means more taxes or more public debt.
I like the idea of trying to control the ever-growing costs of college, but I'm not sure this even addresses controlling costs.

Clinton touts $350B college affordability plan, faces stiff opposition

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton announced a $350 billion plan to make college more affordable Monday, calling for a “new college compact” designed to reduce the surging burden of student debt affecting America’s students.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 8:50 AM

2015-08-11T08:50:09-04:00

A simple way to pay for something like this would be to shut off ALL foreign aid to countries that don't like us. I've said for a long time that if I was POTUS that I would shut down foreign aid, and use it to pay for our graduating seniors college. Why pay others to advance technology to be used against us when we can educate our own people and be more independent?

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Aug 11 at 2015 8:50 AM

2015-08-11T08:50:57-04:00

Come on here, nothing is free, especially with politicians. We all pay in the end!

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Aug 11 at 2015 8:59 AM

2015-08-11T08:59:11-04:00

While I am NOT happy with my student debt (still paying on my wife's and my own student loans), I don't think that this is the way to go. Reform is needed....not sure what it is....but I don't think this is it.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 9:13 AM

2015-08-11T09:13:40-04:00

I am suffering with tons of students loans but I would never ask someone else to pay that for me. Some people aren't meant for college so why would I ask them to pay for someone else to go. In addition after I pay off my debt why would I want to pay for someone elses. We have become a nation that is to dependent on handouts.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 9:15 AM

2015-08-11T09:15:43-04:00

I think she is really starting to feel the pressure of Mr. Sanders. And as such has unveiled her plan. As with most politicians just throw out some numbers and false perceived obtainable objectives and see if it sticks.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 11 at 2015 9:16 AM

2015-08-11T09:16:38-04:00

Someone will have to foot the bill for this folly

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Aug 11 at 2015 9:27 AM

2015-08-11T09:27:44-04:00

As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, Col Joseph Lenertz, the question becomes "what's in it for her"? She's done little to convince me that she has ever had any true and genuine concern for the American people, especially the U.S. military.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Aug 11 at 2015 9:40 AM

2015-08-11T09:40:49-04:00

Really? How is she going to fund this when our nation is already full of debt? If we have to cut funding from more essential services, or pay this ourselves due to a tax increase, then this is definitely not worth it.

Response by CSM David Heidke made Aug 11 at 2015 9:49 AM

2015-08-11T09:49:50-04:00

The more we subsidize colleges the more it's gonna cost.

How about we start to tax colleges?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 10:29 AM

2015-08-11T10:29:29-04:00

What's it really going to cost? I say this needs to be looked at very closely to see what else is in there, anything wrapped up so nicely, appealing to our sense of fairness, access, economic disparity,... to good to be true.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 10:29 AM

2015-08-11T10:29:29-04:00

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 10:29 AM

2015-08-11T10:29:46-04:00

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 10:29 AM

2015-08-11T10:29:46-04:00

Response by 2LT Scott Armstrong made Aug 11 at 2015 10:36 AM

2015-08-11T10:36:09-04:00

The costs are being driven by explosive federal engagement in funding higher education. Tuition hikes have outpaced inflation 10-fold in the past 30 years. Government creates the problem, then offers to fix it for $350B.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 11 at 2015 10:36 AM

2015-08-11T10:36:59-04:00

Col Joseph Lenertz, nothing is more expensive than something free from the government. The Colleges and Universities will have no reason to control costs once Uncle Sugar turns on the money tap.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 10:37 AM

2015-08-11T10:37:37-04:00

I have two firm beliefs on this subject:
1. Mrs Clinton is clearly pandering for votes. This had no chance in Congress. The target audience is young people who are flocking to Senator Sanders, who made a proposal last week making College "free" for everyone. Watch it die as soon as the election is over, if not sooner. I seem to remember President Obama making similar, if non-specific, noises back in 2007.
2. College cost have skyrocket BECAUSE of government subsidies. The market would never bear the burgeoning cost of tuition if there wasn't Pell grants, free rides for students that meet certain litmus tests, and easily available credit for everyone else. My own alma mater, the University of Minnesota, just can't stop building Taj Mahal buildings with dubious usage and utility in the name of "attracting" students. Why do they want more students in a school that has an enrollment of over 50,000? To justify more buildings, of course. The place is constantly under construction, making nearly impossible to navigate. The State just can't help itself, dumping millions more in ever-increasing taxpayer subsidies. When the legislature balks, the U of M threatens double digit tuition increases. It is a cycle. I could say the same about healthcare, prison systems, and civic construction. The schools lost focus on their mission of educating kids long ago.

Response by Lt Col Brad Hamant made Aug 11 at 2015 10:39 AM

2015-08-11T10:39:26-04:00

The federal portion is to be paid for by limiting income tax deductions for "wealthy" taxpayers ... which usually means middle-class. States are "encouraged" to increase funding to public universities to get costs down, but how states would offset the cost, well, you know. And of course any time the government decides to "pay" for something, the cost skyrockets. We've already seen much of this as government has gotten involved in paying for college (and underwriting loans) and tuition is through the roof. You can't "reform" something by throwing public (our) money at it! Terrible idea!

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Aug 11 at 2015 12:13 PM

2015-08-11T12:13:42-04:00

There are a couple of things at play that REALLY need to be addressed without the ideological pre-committments that people bandy about like actual answers to real world problems.

1. Burgeoning student debt with salaries that do not keep pace. School is enormously expensive now for a lot of reasons (mostly due to the competitive nature of the market) and it's not possible to work for the summer to pay for your year. Either you qualify for scholarships, you go into debt or you don't go. That last one is increasingly not an option, so unless you're on the 10 year plan, you go into debt.

2. We are getting massacred in education. Some Americans have decided stupidity is of more value than education because it's cheaper. Then they whine that businesses are importing talent from overseas. Well no shit. You're gutting our primary school systems and now college is increasingly out of reach while other countries dump money into both because they know that to kick our asses, they have to be smarter, more productive and better positioned...the foundation of which is an education that leaves students intellectually and financially positioned to enter the workforce with gusto.

So I don't know if Clinton's plan is the right one, but the "I worked my way through college in 1980 (or used military TA)" doesn't really fly any more. It's a whole new world.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Aug 11 at 2015 12:34 PM

2015-08-11T12:34:08-04:00

Col Joseph Lenertz - Only an idiot thinks that spending $350 billion is an "affordable" plan. Hillary continues the Democrat/liberal mantra that those who work/make the most must pay the bills/debts of those who don't. Just another liberal redistribution of wealth plan... Pandering to the low information voters and entitlement class.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 12:59 PM

2015-08-11T12:59:13-04:00

There are too many unemployable college graduates anyway. That's because they don't have a marketable degree. And when these people aren't going to be able to pay off their student loans, we will have to. People need to earn identifiable skills. Education is so we can gain skills in order to support ourselves and our families, not so we become statistical data in a faceless and nonspecific mass of humans. It's also not so your city can say "We have the highest percentage of people with degrees in our city." But what is that city's employment rate or average income? Hilary, this is a horrible idea. I'm not surprised.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 1:01 PM

2015-08-11T13:01:01-04:00

I believe the Bernie Sanders plan is far better, it eliminates college tuition and fees at public universities and pays for it by imposing a tax on hedge fund transactions. The cost is estimated at 70 Billion dollars a year.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Aug 11 at 2015 1:19 PM

2015-08-11T13:19:27-04:00

Col Joseph Lenertz - Colonel; I'm just waiting for the deluge of posts condemning this raving socialist plan to control the minds of our youth by providing entitlements to the left-wing, liberals, who simply are too lazy to work in order to earn the money needed to pay 100% of the cost of their own university education themselves.

Of course, the vast majority of those diatribes are going to come from people who have - directly or indirectly - benefited from the fact that ALMOST ALL education in the United States of America is heavily "state subsidized".

One solution which no one seems to want to take a look at is the plan whereby the student pays for their post secondary education by a "future surtax" based on the number of years that the student spends in post-secondary education. This surtax would run for the life of the person and attach to their estate and would be "for value received" thus making it difficult to describe as either a "death tax" or "stealing from hard-working American's descendants".

The lower the "socialist state subsidy" for a person's education was, then the higher that person's "future surtax" would be (but the lower the tax burden on those who "receive no benefit from the taxes"). Thus, if a university education ACTUALLY cost $100,000 per year - and the statistical life span of the person taking the courses was 50 years after graduation, then someone who received a four year degree would have to pay a "future surtax" of a mere $1,287.91 per month (not adjusted for inflation - and assuming that everyone who received such a degree was making enough money to pay that amount) but it would probably be simpler to set the repayment as a percentage of gross income so that those who benefited least paid least and those who benefited most paid most. This would mean setting the "future surtax" level at around 35.5% (for a four year program) but it's easier to calculate it if you set it at around 8.86% for each year of post-secondary education.

Admittedly we'd have to make some adjustments for those courses which took more than ten years to complete (Medical degrees, and some PhD programs, for example) since after 11.25 years of post-secondary education the "future surtax" tops 100% of gross income.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Aug 11 at 2015 2:15 PM

2015-08-11T14:15:14-04:00

Just like the SUPPOSEDLY NOT AFFORDABLE Obamacare....this too will run up our deficit and cost the tax payers even more money...

Kids with out means, even adults who go back to school get govenment subsidies and lots of it....the lady who lives across the street from me went back to school in her 40's...single mom, not making much money....so she was able to get all of her tuition paid with PALE GRANTS and GRANTS and some student loans....GRANTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE PAID BACK! just where do you think the government gets this money??? Even student with parents who make a lot of money get GOVERNMENT PALE Grants....my daughters got pale grants even with her father being a doctor... GIVE ME A BREAK....just as obamacare is suppose to be affordable....the money comes out of our pockets....I have so many clients who dropped their insurance and took a hit on their taxes for 2014 because they couldn't afford insurance any longer....the only people with GOOD insurance on obamacare that is truly affordable are those who have low income and the government subsidies pay for most of their deductible and co pays.

This is just an attempt of Hilary to try and muster up some votes...and giving false hope to a bunch of future students....our country cannot afford something else that is SUPPOSEDLY affordable.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2015 3:41 PM

2015-08-11T15:41:36-04:00

I think government help for certain areas is good. If we are so behind the rest of the world in the STEM skills, then lets shift more of the existing grant money to those students who are pursuing those degrees and come out marketable. If your really want to pursue that Art History Degree, then the less help you are going to get.

Student loans needs to be capped. No bank will give an 18-year-old $135,000 to buy a house right out of the gate, why the heck should we, the taxpayers guarantee them that money to go to some private school to get a degree in Interdisciplinary Studies? They can't handle the responsibility of that much money and flat should not be allowed to have it.

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 11 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-08-11T15:56:05-04:00

Being that I'm still paying for my masters I understand the reasoning behind it however I think making college affordable devalues earning a degree - (investment of time and money factor). I also see a problem with saturating the job market with degree holders - thus lowering starting salaries. Additionally many will be earning earning degrees that aren't needed - just image thousands of people going to college to get a basket weaving degree because its now affordable. I don't like the idea of giving away degrees just so everyone can have one. I think the money would be better spent making sure everyone gets through high school first.

Response by MSgt Darum Danford made Aug 11 at 2015 10:52 PM

2015-08-11T22:52:58-04:00

I do not believe anything that comes out of her mouth. I'm all for a female President, just not her.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 13 at 2015 5:15 AM

2015-08-13T05:15:25-04:00

If it's coming from Hillary, I question her ulterior motives by default.