Hillary Clinton Delivers a Lame Attack on Bernie Sanders' Free College Tuition Plan

[azmom]

"Now, I'm a little different from those who say 'free college for everybody.' I am not in favor of making college free for Donald Trump's kids. I am in favor of making college free for your grandson by having no-debt tuition," Clinton told an undecided 71-year-old voter identified as Candy during the event, which was broadcast live Monday on NBC's "Today."

There are a few things to say about this, but to start with, Clinton's example is a straw man. “Hillary Clinton needs to take a good hard look at where people like Trump send their kids to college. They go to private schools,” Sara Goldrick-Rab, a higher education expert at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told Alternet. Sanders's proposal only offers tuition-free college to students at public universities — everything from the City University of New York to the University of Georgia.

Here's where Trump's kids went to school:

Ivanka Trump: Ivanka went to Georgetown and then the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, both private schools.

Eric Trump: Eric went to Georgetown.

Tiffany Trump: Tiffany goes to UPenn, like her sister Ivanka did.

Donald Trump, Jr.: Junior also went to Upenn.

Barron Trump: Barron is 9 years old and therefore has not gone to college yet.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillary-clinton-delivers-lame-attack-bernie-sanders-free-college-tuition-plan

[dsc]

1. Many, many upper middle class and rich kids go to the likes of Berkeley, UNC, University of Michigan

Ohio State etc. Why should a waitress be paying taxes so that the children of her customers can go to schools for free that her kids won't be able to get into due to the fact her public schools don't have the funds to educate her children to compete with them.

[TM99]

5. So?

But the greater point here is that Clinton seems set on making higher education a means-tested welfare program. Imagine if someone were to argue that we should only pay for K-12 education or police for children up to a certain income level; for years, progressives have resisted such income caps on programs like Social Security and Medicare, arguing that universality is important as a principle, both in and of itself and for political reasons. After all, wealthier people are much more likely to support programs if they benefit from them as well.

And there are only 500-something billionaires in the United States. If they decided to stop sending their kids to elite private schools and instead opted for sending them to public colleges, we're talking about a handful of families, not exactly a huge drain on the public treasury. Especially when you consider the fact that education is a public investment that pays for itself.

The rich also get police services, public education if they want it, and the EPA protects their water as much as us plebeians.

[dsc]

12. Not everyone can go to college

unlike SS. It is one thing to give a truely universal benefit to all including the rich. It is quite another to give a benefit that goes to the rich and excludes the poor and then turn around and tax the poor to pay for it.

[TM99]

13. So then you are against Clinton's plan?

Because what Sanders is suggesting is exactly what occurs in most European countries.

Everyone can go to a public education for free. It doesn't matter if you are from a rich family or a poor family. It does not matter if you are black or white, male or female, or whatever your orientation is.

Sanders has never suggested given a benefit that goes to the rich and excludes the poor. How anyone can twist this to believe that is beyond me.

[dsc]

14. they use a test to determine who can go

and in this country the poor would overwhelmingly fail that test. It should be noted in the UK their poor also do poorly on the UK exams.

[TM99]

16. The tests only determine to which type of school

it does not mean no poor people go to university or tech schools. The German model is exceptional, and it would solve a lot of problems here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. So a poor kid

The tests only determine to which type of school. It does not mean no poor people go to university or tech schools. The German model is exceptional, and it would solve a lot of problems here.

Wouldn't that just reinforce existing inequalities?

Students from higher income families attend better public schools, have more affluent parents who can devote more time to them and are better equipped to do so by virtue of themselves being better educated, and they will consequently do better on entrance exams and get into better colleges or universities while the children of the poor and working class, save the exceptional, will be shuttled off to tech schools. The children of the poor and working class will be fixing the toilets and automobiles of the middle, upper middle class, and rich, while the children of the affluent will be society's physicians, attorneys, engineers, and CEOs.

[AgingAmerican]

56. Poor kids can get into good schools

By going to Jr College then transferring. You obviously don't understand how college works.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. I understand how college works.

poor kids can get into good schools

By going to Jr College then transferring. You obviously don't understand how college works.

AA- Daytona Beach Community College
BS- University Of Central Florida
MA-University Of Central Florida
Post graduate work-Florida State University.


So I made the leap you alluded to. That being said, poor and working class children that attend inner city public schools lack the life and educational opportunities that students who attend better funded suburban schools and private schools enjoy.

[AgingAmerican]

59. Then why are you contradicting yourself?

People get into different colleges based on merit. That's how it has always worked.

Those who can't transfer into a good college from HS can do so from Community College.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. It is not automatic as you suggest...

A student who was unprepared by his K-12 experience for college is going to struggle in community college, albeit less. And transferring from community college to a "good" four year college is not automatic and depends on GPA, courses chosen, and extra curricula activity.

College should be available to any qualified man or woman who wants to attend regardless of his or her ability to pay. However I don't see the equity or utility of using finite resources to provide free tuition to those who can pay, i.e. it should be means tested.

[AgingAmerican]

63. I came into community college taking GED classes

With no qualification, because I barely made it out of sixth grade. After GED, I took High School level math classes, and finally college level classes. Eventually I transferred to the University.

I graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in Software Engineering. One of the top ten computer science programs in the USA.

It isn't 'Automatic'. You have to earn it, but anyone who is reasonably intelligent and willing to sacrifice can do it. ANYONE.

College does not equal 'bad'. College = 'good'.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. That is a great feat. You should be proud./nt

[azmom]

15. The number one reason kids don't go to

College is because their families can't afford for them to go to college.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. My mom had an I Q of 151, was in Rapid Advance, and graduated from high school at fifteen.

My mom had an I Q of 151, was in Rapid Advance, and graduated from high school at fifteen. She had to take a job as a bookkeeper to support her widowed mother and younger brother.

My dad died when I was fourteen and left my mom and I with a 700 square foot shot gun shack and a lot of debt. I worked my way through college and grad school as a bouncer, bar tender, lifeguard, and fitness instructor. I don't see the equity of letting the scion of a wealthy family go to college for free and my paying it for it through my tax dollars when he or she had so many advantages over me and my kind up to that point.

Do I really need to pay to educate the Bushes at the University Of Texas?

[kenfrequed]

18. Horatio Alger personal stories are inspiring

But all the personal stories in the world do not trump the fact that we are one of the few countries in the world that requires students to go into massive personal debt to go to school.

Bernie's plan is better because it makes education available to all as long as they meet the standards.

Making public universities free is not some kind of benefit to the ubber wealthy. That is spin. Most of the wealthy will continue to got to private institutions that seem to exist to reinforce their privelage. This is about providing the ladders and stairways to success to all and to assure economic mobility. BTW America does a lot worse at economic mobility than a lot of those European countries with their silly free education.

I know you want to defend Hillary on this but I would look for some other point where maybe her policy is better and stop repeating really her very transparent spin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Do you have any data to support your assertion?

Making public universities free is not some kind of benefit to the ubber wealthy. That is spin. Most of the wealthy will continue to got to private institutions that seem to exist to reinforce their privelage.

Do you have any data to support your assertion?

Anecdotally I know when I went to FSU Don Shula's daughter was one of my classmates and several Bushes matriculated at the University Of Texas.

[kenfrequed]

23. I was responding to your lack of data

You provided an anecdote and I responded that it wasn't an adequate argument.


Perhaps I could respond with the numbers on out of control student debt. Clearly since those numbers are at unprecedented levels we can extrapolate that those people did NOT have wealthy parents that paid for their education. I think you are being intentionally obtuse about this as your demand for proof seems to be predicated on a denial that the problem exists at all.

Logically speaking.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I have no problem at all making college available to anyone who wants to attend.

I have no problem at all making college available to anyone who wants to attend. I do have a problem in my tax dollars going to pay for college for those who can afford to attend as my taxes should go to those in need.

[kenfrequed]

40. This is a terrible argument.

Maybe we should change how state parks and libraries work and force poor visitors to do work and manage tax credits while charging entry fees just to assure that rich people don't wander into those as well.

[Aerows]

54. Do you have any data

to support your assertion?

[AgingAmerican]

57. You asserted the exact same thing up thread

You are trying to take both sides of the issue.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=654104

[jeff47]

27. So your argument is the rich family isn't paying taxes?

I don't see the equity of letting the scion of a wealthy family go to college for free and my paying it for it through my tax dollars when he or she had so many advantages over me and my kind up to that point.

So...the rich family doesn't pay any taxes in your world? Especially when the proposed mechanism to pay for it is increased taxes on the wealthy?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. So your argument is the rich family isn't paying taxes?

So your argument is the rich family isn't paying taxes?

Show me where I wrote that the rich don't pay taxes and I will cut off my index finger , roast it, eat it, and put it on youtube.

[jeff47]

31. I quoted it. I recommend local anesthetic before you start.

If the wealthy family is paying for it via taxes, it isn't free. Despite you claiming it is free here.

I don't see the equity of letting the scion of a wealthy family go to college for free and my paying it for it through my tax dollars when he or she had so many advantages over me and my kind up to that point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. There is no suggestion in that quote the rich don't pay taxes.

I don't see the equity of letting the scion of a wealthy family go to college for free and my paying it for it through my tax dollars when he or she had so many advantages over me and my kind up to that point.

There is no suggestion in that quote the rich don't pay taxes. In fact public universities are already subsidized by tax dollars. I don't see the equity of using tax dollars to pay the tuition of those who can afford to attend college when we have so many other pressing needs.

I don't see why tax dollars should go to pay for the likes of John Ellis Bush's college education (University Of Texas at Austin, B.A.) when 48.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That is the creed of the true progressive.

I don't see any contradiction between stating that every qualified person should be able to attend college regardless of their ability to pay and if you can afford to pay you should.

[jeff47]

39. How is it free if they pay for it?

I don't see the equity of using tax dollars to pay the tuition of those who can afford to attend college when we have so many other pressing needs.

Because the people you are complaining about are the source of tax dollars to "pay the tuition". They are paying, it's just called "taxes" instead of "tuition".

There is no particular reason to charge tuition, except as a gating mechanism to punish the poor. Why bother having a complex means-testing tuition system when we can just charge nothing as "tuition" and have the wealthy pay more in taxes?

We know what happens to means-tested systems: They get cut out of existence. We know what happens to "universal" systems like Medicare and Social Security: They don't get cut out of existence.

Your plan is to ensure the "free tuition" program will eventually be eliminated so that you can keep calling it "tuition". How about we accomplish the same thing without setting up a program that will be eliminated?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. They are paying for a portion of it through their tax dollars.

They are paying for a portion of it through their tax dollars just as poor folks are through their tax dollars but they aren't paying for the cost of tuition for every person attending, i.e. the free part

A poor/ working class kid goes to underfunded public schools since schools are largely funded through property taxes and then has to compete in public universities against middle class/upper middle class/rich kids who went to better funded public schools who will going there for free. Where is the equity in that?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That is the clarion call of every true progressive.

[jeff47]

44. No, the wealthy are paying for all of it through their tax dollars

Remember, the plan is paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That is the clarion call of every true progressive.

So the only true progressives are Marxists?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. The four year cost of tuition and residence for a out of stare student at UCLA is $220,000.00

If you can demonstrate the taxes of the wealthy will go up by $55,000.00 a year I will look at the proposal.

In the alternative I would rather have those who can afford to pay actually pay and address more pressing needs like getting po folks access to good schools and medicine.

[jeff47]

48. The tax rates Sanders proposed would raise more than that.

If you can demonstrate the taxes of the wealthy will go up by $55,000.00 a year I will look at the proposal.

So...you're attacking a proposal while having no idea what is actually in that proposal. That's a great starting place.

Anyway, the tax rates would bring in way more than $55,000/year. Remember, they'd be paying higher taxes before their kid enters school and after their kid graduates. Instead, you're trying to make them pay only while their kid is attending school.

You also forgot to clarify whether or not only Marxists are true progressives.

[MindfulOne]

21. Do we or do we fucking not all pay taxes so that Trump's kids can go to 6th grade.

There. Same deal.

[jeff47]

32. His kids probably went/go to a private grade school too. (nt)

[MindfulOne]

36. And we can assume the same for college. We don't means test K12 public schools.

Hillary took a cheap shot that can only resonate with low information voters.

Sanders plan isn't to pay for all students going to all schools.

Shame on her.

[jeff47]

38. It's a dumb cheap shot too. It's paid for by taxing the wealthy.

Thus Trump would not only be paying for his kids to go to "free" public universities, he's also paying for other people's kids too. It would just be called "taxes" instead of "tuition".

[dsc]

37. we all go to 6th grade

which makes this vastly different.

[Scootaloo]

51. How is it different, if the idea is to make College as accessible as 6th grade?

[jwirr]

41. For the most part state college systems now include trade

schools which means that most can go to school. As for special needs children - in our state the system includes classes called transition classes which help the student transition into normal society.

That leaves children like my daughter who will never be part of any college system which is the last thing I am worried about. She graduated to Social Security when she was 18.

[azmom]

9. Here is an idea. Why don't we better fund those

Public schools so that the waitress' kids also has a shot at a decent college education.

[artislife]

10. Why should a waitress pay taxes to bomb and kill children in other countries?

I would rather my taxes go to educate anyone who wants to improve their minds, no matter where they started from.

[OKNancy]

2. That's not an attack - It is not an attack to mention differences

Sanders mentions all the time how he is different from Hillary. He points out where they differ. He DOES mention her name too.

And I'll just add that Clinton's plan is much more doable. There is no way in hell that there will be free college for everyone. One more example of pie-in-the-sky promises that can never happen.

[virtualobserver]

6. she falsely uses Donald Trump's kids in her argument.

That what establishes her statement as pure manipulation rather than striving to "mention differences"

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Why are you defending Trump against Hillary Clinton?

That's Trump's job, not some "liberal" on a Democratic Party's site. Very odd.

That said, Hillary Clinton used Trump's kids as an example, bringing it home, that not everyone in the United States should have free college. Trump is a well-known billionaire and she was putting forward the reality of "free college for everyone" for most a-political Americans (who are in the majority in this low-informed country). Simply put: those who can pay for college, should. Yes. I'm advocating means testing, which is only fair since we live in a capitalistic country, not a communist one where everyone is equal.

I support Hillary Clinton in her plans on making college more affordable. She can get this done.

I don't support Bernie Sanders' feel-good, pie-in-the-sky promise that will never come to fruition simply because he's got ZERO support in Congress which is the ONLY body of gov't that could pass legislation to turn his unicorn into a flesh-and-blood horse. Bernie has zero friends in Congress. His supporters need to finally realize that political reality.

[virtualobserver]

42. Hillary's statement was false....It was a manipulation.

Billionaires like Trump will not be sending their kids to public colleges, so her "example" is a dishonest manipulation. Your statement that I am somehow "defending Trump" because I point out that obvious truth is laughable enough, but to question my "liberal" bona fides because of it is even less reasonable.

Means testing is so Third Way and the time for selling policies with dishonest examples is over

[antigop]

7. Sanders's proposal only offers tuition-free college to students at PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES. nt

[azmom]

11. It was lame. Talk about the differences but don't

Imply that Trump would send his kids to a public university because it would be free. That is just laughable. Her campaign sucks.

[Live and Learn]

22. No way in hell, huh? Pie in the sky?

What kind of attitude is that? We can accomplish whatever we want to accomplish. Why not just admit that you don't want free college educations for all?

[jwirr]

45. You may be right about how the country will see free college

but I see it as a way of competing with all the other industrial nations that already have free education. In the USA we have always in the past seen a college education as something that would pay for itself through higher paying jobs, intellectual development in the area of research and a higher educated work force.

We are falling behind in all these categories. There are more reasons than free stuff for us to have free college in our country.

Also the more complicated we make this the more top heavy this program will become. Hillary's plan is very complicated.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. This is not an attack. It is differenting their positions.

We all worked while going to school. 10 hours a week? I had a full time job, and was a single mother. Please.

Her plan is reasonable. And just like Obama's healthcare, and social security, it can be worked on and added to.

It is not a "lame attack" to explain the differences in the plan, and explain why her plan is better.

You need to take what you give.

[kenfrequed]

20. Yeah

We all did it so we shouldn't try to improve the system to benefit our children and our future over the profit margins of banks that are making money off of student debt.


Saying that Bernie Sanders is trying to make education cheaper for Donald Trump's kids IS a lame attack because it is a complete misrepresentation.


I have no idea why you would try to defend it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

33. 10 hours a week

It Is a reasonable proposal. And, sanders is not limiting his proposal to low income...so it is available to all.

[kenfrequed]

35. Right...

Based on some kind of tax credit in order to be "revenue neutral" that will then be watered down significantly and then quietly defunded in a few years.

We need the banks out of public education permanently.

Your candidate's solution is a non-starter.

At least if we start from Public university for free funded by a transaction tax then we can negotate from there to somewhere still tolerable.

[beam me up scottie]

53. " sanders is not limiting his proposal to low income...so it is available to all."

That's the point, like public school which is available to all.

[jwirr]

46. I also attended college as a single mother with 3 kids. I did

not have a job. There were kids that needed those jobs worse than I did.

[marym625]

4. yeah, great idea.

That should work as well as financial aid currently works.

K&R

[restorefreedom]

8. it is a feeble attempt at a sound bite.

except that the progressives and most of the public aren't buying. nearly everyone knows that the uber elite are not gonna send their kids to state or community colleges just because they're free. And even if they did, since higher taxes on them are going to be helping to subsidize this program, those kids would be entitled to it just as much as anyone else.

another swing and miss.

[Live and Learn]

24. Because Hillary, if it isn't free for all they start calling it an 'entitlement'

and work to eliminate it.

An educated populace puts people on equal footing and will help America regain its place in the world as an innovative leader.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I get it. Trump's kids will have to work their way through college. She's punishing the rich!!

She's also punishing the poor and middle class, but what the hell, they're nothing but a bunch of ignorant, lazy, undeserving, layabouts anyway.

[jeff47]

28. The most lame part is Trump is paying under Sanders's plan.

The "free tuition" is funded via increased taxes on the wealthy. So Trump would be paying for that "free" public university education. It would be called "taxes" instead of "tuition".

[olddots]

49. I also get it, becoming president can be blinding

Bernie appears to not want to attack but to solve where a sollution is possable .

[HassleCat]

52. Wealthy freeloaders

We should tolerate them. If the Bush kids, or the Trump kids can qualify to attend a public university, then they should go there and not have to pay tuition. Chances are, they will not even bother, since Mummy and Daddy can make a big donation to Harvard or Yale and get them in there. Allowing rich kids to go to public universities tuition-free is not much of a problem.

[99Forever]

55. Lame is being generous.

What the Inevitable One is acually saying, is that it's just fine for us prols to start life under a mountain of debt, juzt to keep the filthy rich from getting a benefit they won't take anyway.




Tone deaf always.

[beam me up scottie]

60. ^^ This ^^

We shouldn't allow everyone to attend public universities tuition free because rich kids will get the benefit too?

[mvd]

62. Yep - why "means test" free tuition?

We already know it wouldn't be good for Social Security to means test. And the work requirement of Hillary's isn't a good idea.