Bernie Sanders 2016 Feel the Bern!

The problem with that is if something is actually going to be passed how much is going to be compromised? If people support Sanders because he is going to lead a revolution that changes the country and then realize once in office he's having to compromise a lot of things what sort of revolution is that?

I agree that Sanders will have to make many compromises. He isn't going to be able to govern if he isn't. Because of that though I also suspect that many of those feeling the Bern four or eight years now will be having buyer's remorse over him.

I brought this up earlier but you have to remember that Obama wasn't just negotiating with the Repubs but also had to with many Dems. He had a supermajority (for a very short while) but that majority wasn't one that was totally in lock step. If he had come out with a much harder proposal then it's doubtful whether his Dem majority could've held together.

Looking at what the GOP proposed it is clear that they weren't interested in actually proposing a viable alternative. HSA's and selling insurance across state lines does very little to address the fundamental problems with the US health care system. They were much more interested in seeing Obama fail and said so themselves. If Obama had started further left with ACA I see little reason why the GOP would've given in more in negotiation when for them it wasn't about getting health care reform passed but about stopping Obama.

The flaw there is presuming that the GOP actually want to work with Sanders or will be somehow cowed enough by a Sanders presidency to be willing to come to the table. If anything judging by conservative rhetoric they are more likely to harden their positions. We can debate what is Democratic Socialism but clearly in Conservative minds Sanders isn't Willy Brandt but Vladimir Lennin. Someone who is antithetical to everything the US stands for.

It certainly might make liberals feel better to have someone who is publicly a true believer but it is highly doubtful that means more get's done.

I'm not going to say that Clinton will accomplish more. The Republicans have hated Hillary for 25 years and that isn't going to change. That said given both their histories I think Hillary has a better handle on the workings of both executive and legislative branches having served in both, and yes that means Burlinton, VT in the 80's isn't comparable to having been heavily involved in policy in both the Bill Clinton Admins. and Sec'y of State in the first Obama Admin. Further she's dealt already with negotiations with hostile opponents both domestic and foreign, where she has been the lead figure both publicly and privately. I fully believe that Sanders is a very smart guy who has cultivated good relationships with friends and opponents in Congress but I think Clinton having dealt with everything from Hillarycare to an international sanctions regime on Iran will be the better negotiator.

 

Is he promising 'a bit cheaper' or free? I'm a Bernie supporter as well, but I think he's writing some checks that he knows he can't cash. Not that that's some kind of grave sin in political campaigning, but he's framing himself as an establishment outsider (implication being that he should be above that kind of pandering).

Back to the topic, I would be interested to see what percentage of HS graduates attended college in the 1960s, compared with today (especially among women). As a population grows and as postsecondary degrees become more important, costs are going to go up. Ultimately, I think free community college and offsetting current student loan debt via government appropriation is a good starting point to aim for.

 

Anyone who thinks Sanders is the same as Trump is flat out ignorant, delusional or both. As is obvious I'm very critical of Sanders but that is that he is worthy of being taken serious with serious criticism on questions of policy and implementation. Trump's proposals are so vague that they aren't worth the time to be considered serious. Winning isn't a proposal, it's barely a slogan.

Further as I pointed out in the Carrier jobs thread. If you're voting for Trump because he is going to stick it to the fat cats and protect the working man Trump's history says otherwise. I'm sure those people who worked for Trump projects in Atlantic City find it reassuring that he's going to look out for them when he becomes president after he pulled out of Atlantic City and left them unemployed. Trump is the .1% that people are railing against. He's one of those who has manipulated the system to enrich himself at the expense of the working class.

 

To follow up on this just because Texas and CA were able to provide free tuition more than 40 years ago ignores how different the World and economy was then. In 1950 the enrollment at the UT Austin was 14K. Now it is 50K. Once again a marked difference in scale.

In those days few people went to college and most people upon graduation went into the work force. It was also a time when the US economy was in the midst of unprecedented post war expansion and dominated the World economy.

 

UT used to cost around 600 dollars a semester in 1990 and 200 dollars a semester in the 80's. The economy was not booming then and the enrollment was similar to what it is now. College doesn't have to be expensive proven by the tuition at most community colleges.

 

He said tuition would be made free to all of those who have the ability for public universities (and likely, this would apply only for in-state universities). This isn't some extension of the public school system, it's the elimination of a huge barrier for many, well-qualified, middle class students.It's not a handout to every high school graduate, it's a reward to those that are able for their hard work and dedication. This would not help the privileged class because their kids go to private institutions anyways. And to top it off, it would hypothetically be paid by a tax on wall street speculation, a tax that already exists in many countries around the world.

As for the educational product itself, it's important to note that even at a university like UT, tuition only satisfies about 25% of the total operating cost. Getting grants from third party donors will still be a major factor for all institutions. Plus, it's not like Germany's educational system went down the drain once they axed tuition fees.

His idea is not completely unreasonable and even if the numbers don't quite work out let's say he is able to slash tuition fees by 80-90%. It will still make college way more accessible and lead to a more intelligent and well prepared work force. Investing in Human capital is an extremely effective way to increase economic growth and frankly, we're hurting ourselves by making it harder for young people to get an education

 

I am kind of on board with what you are saying about compromise, on the condition that Bernie would have to win without the political revolution that he's talking about. If he won without a real mandate, brining in new and energized voters, or that kind of thing, then yes there is no reason to think that the Republicans would work with him on anything.

However, if he energized a significant number of people including independents who might support his outside the mainstream attitude even if it wasn't 100% politically aligned with their own, then representatives could face the same kinds of pressure they faced from tea party constituents.

 

The economy wasn't but the overall number of people going to college was much less. Granted from what I recall the UT Austin enrollment wasn't much smaller then as of now but I think the overall attendance of people going to college was less.

I will admit that the high costs of college tuition isn't a subject I've looked deeply into even though Cal keeps on hitting me up for donations. When I have some time I will dig into it further and am open to learning more on Sanders' proposal.

I will say this though from what I've heard so far new taxes to pay for providing free college is likely to be more controversial than the idea of providing more college tuition.

 

I've pointed this out repeatedly that the exact same thing was said about Obama. If I recall you strongly supported him in the 2008 primaries so you're probably much more aware of how large his movement was and the type of enthusiasm he generated. Many have said Obama didn't marshall that to his advantage but from what I recall from the moment he came into office riding high on a sound victory and Congress firmly in Dem control the Republicans weren't cowed.

The problem with counting on young voters is that historically they've failed to turn out in off year elections or vote in things like state legislature elections. That has led to why the GOP has been able to successfully gerrymander congressional districts to their advantage even as their overall percentage of the vote in national elections declines.

 

(First, thanks for the thoughtful post that doesn't assume things like my idiocy or lack of knowledge about the history of higher ed. Seriously.)

I know this exists in many countries, but I doubt the political will of this country to enact such a tax. I could be wrong.

The trend line for most universities is an increasing reliance on tuition and fundraising with sharply decreasing reliance on public funds.

Here's a graph from the U. California system, which was once nearly free to all deserving in-state students.



There are many drivers to this, beyond the lack of public interest in funding education. One is ever-increasing regulations and student needs. As someone who's been a prof for nearly 20 years, I can say the increasing need for student services, with accompany full-time staff (psych counseling, job counseling, alcohol counseling, IT, etc, etc), is a non-trivial driver in the cost. At least, we can demonstrate that the only thing tracking the hyper-inflation tuition rise is the # of non-academic staff lines at most universities. More directors of blah blah blah. More administrators, and so on.

I for one would love to make it easier for people to attend college, financially at least. I think it's way too expensive for far too many deserving young students. Our most economically challenged students have long relied on Pell Grants, but they've become a dicey political topic in today's acidic Congressional climate. Meanwhile, their utility is steadily dropping.



With the demonstrable broad-based lack of public interest in funding higher education, especially among a majority of congressional members, I'm not sure how ready America would be to embrace some new tax or fee to pay for dramatically reduced prices in public higher ed. Other causes, maybe, but not college. The conservative segments of the media have successfully painted colleges as useless, liberal dens of PC gone wild, with no benefit to society.

As it stands, perhaps Bernie could squeeze through a modest bump of federal funding for, say, Pell grants, perhaps making them more useful again. But the main pressure for change will probably be making institutions lower their sticker cost. That would have broad-based public support; not higher taxes.

Universities will have to cut a lot of fat (and therefore deliver less in the way of extracurricular and co-curricular student services, I'd predict, and also cut large fleets of fundraisers and grants offices, IT services, etc.), or deliver a less quality product (e.g. moving increasingly away from full-time faculty, who are relatively expensive versus part-time faculty who work at several schools at once, don't have office hours, etc.).

I would like to be wrong about it. But the distance between our current trend lines and the vision of cutting tuition 80-90% anytime soon just seems very vast to me.

Perhaps as millenials step into leading rolls in the decades ahead, the populace will be more willing to embrace societal funding priorities than it is right now. I'm talking about a 20- or 30-year picture though, not a presidential term.

 

That was before resort-style campus rec centers and luxury condos for 19 year olds. Of course campus-wide T1 and broadband wi-fi probably isn't cheap either. You also had maybe 20% of high school grads going on to college, but once manufacturing and retail management lost any respectability and couldn't buy you a house or decent apartment, enrollment shot up to something like 70% of high schoolers, so there are a lot more kids to accommodate along with basic supply and demand.

 

Sure I remember all of that. Many on here on Clutchfans brought that up. The problem with that though is that yes Obama knew that Pelosi and others already were sure votes to pass ACA and a stimulus package what he didn't know is if Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor or Olympia Snowe would.

He still needed those votes and made the tactical decision that he needed more time to negotiate with those people rather than votes that he felt were already in his hand. So of course he took the left for granted. If he had tried to accomodate them when they were going to vote already ACA and the stimulus never would've been passed since if he gave in to demands from people already on his side he might've lost the votes of those who were not so ideologically aligned with him and /or on the bubble with their support.

Unfortunately the Republicans have been better able to keep party discipline that said if you listen to John Boehnor and Cruz it is clear that they too have significant problems keeping their base together.

Honestly this just sounds petty.

Accept what is he supposed to do if he has to both appease his base, moderates and those on the other side of the political divide? You're faulting him for not being able to please everyone. He can only do so much.

Yes and I've read some of Krugman and Robert Reich's complaints about the Obama presidency. I actually agree with some of them and it was one of my criticisms of him coming in that he felt too early he could try to please too many including the GOP. That said I don't fault him for not going out of his way to appease the left. Maybe it's not nice but in a tight contest you have to focus on winning over the swing voters rather than spend your time appeasing the base. It's the exact reason why general elections spend so much time in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania rather than in California or Texas.

This is again one of those realities that frankly I don't think many actual consider. If Sanders wins Sanders supporters are likely going to find that out during the first Congress of this presidency.

 

Today's SCOTUS news is an important reminder of why we need Bernie and not DINOs and sellouts like Obama and Clinton. With Hillary, we'd get a justice like Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, or Ginsberg. Nightmare for true and pure liberal Democrats.

 

Hilarious! And how very fitting! Feel the Bern?

 

Dang, a prof for 20 years?? what did you teach?

Thanks for all the info, didn't realize how bad it has become, and I don't think many of my peers get this at all either. I'm a student currently, and honestly, there is widespread discontent with the cost, though it has become one of the things that everyone seems to accept as unfortunate and unchangeable.

As for the political will of this country, I believe that the majority of america would support this measure, especially in regards to minorities and economically challenged communities. The only issue is getting the legislation passed. There was a great study done by Princeton that showed the oligarchical nature of our current "democracy":

(https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Check out the graphs on page 10 of this doc.
Elites and special interest groups own the current legislative system, and the opinions of the general populous doesn't affect the likelihood of a bill getting passed. In addition, the low voter turnout and lack of confidence in the government from the majority of the public means we probably haven't seen the true political will of this country in decades.

This is where Bernie comes in, a lot of his proposals will be blocked by congress in the first two years, but if he can maintain the energy of his campaign and keep open, honest lines of communication with the people (thinking FDR fireside chats here) then at the very least, there will be massive turnover in Congress. My prediction is that the pressure will build before this even becomes an issue and ultimately, substantial legislation will be passed.

You can say what you want about Bernie getting his policies enacted, but at least he has a chance. His presidency could have a real shot at getting the money out of politics and set a kind of precedence for our politics for years to come. Hillary has 0 chance to get anything along these lines passed in congress simply because she's bought out, she couldn't even propose a tax on speculation even if she wanted to. She just wants to continue the neo-liberal regime of the wall street democrats.

Lastly, Bernie has a record of getting things passed, so even if I'm wrong I think he will certainly make some half measures like increasing pell grants. He's not going to stubbornly cling to his ideals and screw the american people. (I realize I'm assuming you're not a Bernie supporter, wasn't really sure though, so the last two paragraphs were just in case #FeeltheBern)

 

I don't understand why the media is spinning this superdelegate nonsense (the memes were funny tho )

THESE VOTES HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN CAST YET. Do people honestly believe the superdelegates are going to screw over Sanders if he wins the pledged delegate count??

Heck no! There would be massive revolt if that shyt went down. Clinton did the same crap in 2008 and so many of the superdelegates ended up switching to Obama at the end because it was clear who the people wanted.

That being said, this superdelegate nonsense is stupid and should be abolished

 

If the votes are close, super delegates will decide who gets nominated, that makes sense, if it is like Iowa, why shouldn't party leader decide a tie?

 

Honestly, if it's like Iowa, the popular vote should just be used. In addition, "party leaders" are not who make up the superdelegates, they're members of congress in addition to insiders and former office holders (Bill Clinton is one). There's 700+ in total. On a side note, Bernie probably won the popular vote in Iowa anyways, but that's not relevant.


My point was simply that theoretically, the superdelegates can overturn a decision even if its not close. (They own 15% of all delegates, so lets say Bernie won 48% of all the delegates and hillary won 35%, the super delegates could all go towards hillary and essentially undermine the popular opninion).

However, they would never do something that ridiculous unless they wanted some serious trouble. So the only real question is, why would the media add in hypothetical superdelegate votes to the delegate count and make it seem like a tie even though Bernie won by 22 points? They know very well that backers of hillary switched to Obama in 08, so isn't it a little presumptious to just giver her the votes? They're making it seem like even if he's winning by this much it's not a big deal, which hurts his viability as a candidate and might put off potential voters. Just more mainstream BS.

I agree that if its a flat out tie then let the party leaders decide, but if not, let democracy run and let whoever wins the majority of the primary delegates be the nominee.