Neil Cavuto embarrasses liberal student who wants free college

I read it somewhere else, so not my original quote. But, Cavuto was patient and seemed to go out of his way to not be condescending. Anyway, quoting someone else, the title should really be "Student embarrasses herself during interview with Neil Cavuto."

 

the top percent does not pay 50% taxes. Picking on a 20 year old is pretty weak in my book.

 

He did not pick on her as you're inferring he did, it's not even close to that. She is the organizer of the movement, they have these three main demands, and Neil just wanted to know how it would be funded - not a dumb question.

Bottom line if you are going on to a show to talk about your movement, at minimum you should be able to hit your main bullet points and be able to describe how that will be achieved, in this case from a financial standpoint. If not, my suggestion would be, don't go on the show.

 

She/they are making the wrong argument. Education is too expensive and all education loans should be 0% interest. Fixing those two alone would go a long way towards fixing the major issues.

 

That right there makes more sense and that is something that possibly can be achievable, from a fiscal standpoint.

 

Um. Okay.

Moving on...

 

She was the wrong person to debate him.

Bernie Sanders plan for free college tuition for public universities has an estimated cost of 45 billion dollars at the federal level per year. To put things in perceptive, the federal government spent 3.7 trillion dollars in total expenditures in 2015. 45 billion/3.7 trillion = 0.012. That's 1.2% of annual expenditures by the federal government. Ya, no citizen is going to see a dent when they 'pick up the tab'.

 

From a fiscal standpoint free tuition for public universities still makes sense. The proposed amount that it will cost is the same amount of ordnance we drop on Syria and Iraq in a month in terms of dollars.

 

Which is why she was probably brought on the show
Alot of shows like to shoot low hanging fruit


Rocket River

 

Education loans at 0% isn't sustainable. The government will take huge losses on that. Better to just take the money you lose on those 0% loans and just use it to lower tuition prices. I think subsidized loans as structured now are fine but the problem is that the percentage of students requiring loans and the size of those loans have grown substantially over the last 20 years.

The biggest problem is just state funding of universities has plummeted over that same time period. Federal funding for grant and scholarship programs also fell over the same period. There's also less funding for work study, state financial aid, etc.. The whole system is just getting slashed and burned.

However, I do think community colleges can be made free. Tennessee already has free community college for 2 years. And properly structured community colleges can make a gigantic difference in career and educational outcomes.

Lastly, for profit colleges just need to be banned entirely. They're just debt traps for un-informed students.

 

But just we can have free tuition doesn't mean we should. I don't mind paying, just not exorbitant prices/loans with an unfair value in return. So maybe tuition can be "free" but still allow the Universities to make some money for growth and development. Something of good value shouldn't be free is all I'm saying.

Agreed, For-Profit undergraduate and graduate education should be banned. For-Profit should be restricted to private industry education/certifications, etc...

 

That's pretty rough to watch. It's really unfair to ask a young liberal to explain their beliefs honestly because most of the time they aren't very well thought out....it's why a lot of people grow out of it.

 

Except Bernie Sanders would wreck Neil with empirical evidence and he will do it with that loud and annoying Brooklyn accent while waving his hands.

 

Wow! A professional conservative mouthpiece, with a staff feeding him talking points and skewed data daily, made a 20-year-old undergrad look unprepared!

 

The schools are still getting paid tuition...just from the federal government instead of the students. The universities will still have their donations as the main source of paying for research.

If we can have free tuition for students, we absolutely should. I wouldn't be against there being some caveats with it...like public service of some sort for a year or 2 out of college.

 

Yeah, that'd be nice. But the two things you want to fix work in opposition to one another. The reason why education costs keep going up (and we see this too with healthcare costs, and it also catalyzed the mortgage bubble pre-2008) is because the capital is widely available. If you make it cheap by subsidizing interest costs, capital will be even more widely available, meaning schools can hike their tuitions even further. There is a principal-agent problem here in which students are agreeing to excessive tuition because someone else is fronting the money. It's not until they've been paying that loan back for a few years before those students realize the bill was too high in the first place.

I'm pretty socialist. I want to see free or cheap college education. I want free or cheap healthcare. But, I want to hear about how we can decouple this relationship between easy capital and product costs before launching headlong into solutions that can make the problem worse. Raw capitalism has an answer: each consumer pays his own way either in cash, or by leveraging his own unguaranteed credit to secure his own unsubsidized loans. Shoppers are very thrifty in that situation. But, that's going to shut a lot of people out of college. If you give them subsidies or guarantees, you damage the thrift. So, either we need to do something to preserve thrift or else otherwise enforce college spend discipline. You can use an old-fashioned spending cap or tuition cap that forces colleges to restrain themselves, but that hampers their ability to innovate and compete. The government could dole out a voucher, but that'll probably bifurcate the system into schools for poor voucher kids and schools for rich kids. It's a hard problem and I'm not very satisfied with any solution I can think of.

 

She's a leader, spokeswoman, whatever for the movement. Yes she's young, but she's an adult. I feel no sympathy for her being ignorant of reality and basic economics.

 

And just like I expected, the real truth comes out!

This ridiculous rhetoric about being a bully, has nothing to do with an organizer/spokeswoman of a movement not being able to answer the most basic questions surrounding their cause, like how do we pay for it, instead it's just another boring/unsuccessful attempt at slamming the one news station that doesn't support your liberal views, Fox News, like every other news station out there does. That playbook has been played over and over by both sides (I hear conservatives doing it about MSNBC, CNN and all the others), time to get a new talking point - you don't like Fox news, got it!

 

We're literally talking about someone whose job it is to speak on television, versus someone who likely has never been interviewed on TV in their life.

If this weren't a political issue, and someone posted a video of a kid performing poorly while being interviewed for the first time, I'm willing to bet the responses from some of you posters would be a little different.

I don't even give a crap about the content either way. Some of you guys are just being ridiculous because you've become so freaking consumed with this 'us vs. them' mentality in politics.