[Cog]

How much is this free education going to cost taxpayers? If you want to talk about sparse details, that is one I would like an answer to.

[vtsnowedin]

How much is this free education going to cost taxpayers? If you want to talk about sparse details, that is one I would like an answer to.

What frost my tomatoes is that I've already got three children through college using every strategy and method to pay for it including one joining the Army reserves and spending a year boots on ground in a middle east hell hole and another racking up 60K in student loans I'm cosigned on. And now they want to tax me to send other peoples kids to school for free while doing nothing to reorganize the abuses of the college administrations.
So I don't care how much they say it will cost me, I'm having none of it and on this issue I'm TEA ....Taxed enough already!

[Cog]

Why are you being so selfish? You didn't build that. If it takes taxing you 100% of your income than that is what will be fair to those less fortunate than yourself. Get with the program comrade. You are obviously suffering from white and rich privilege.

[vtsnowedin]

. You are obviously suffering from white and rich privilege.

That must be it. Funny I don't recall the rich or privileged part. Must be they are counting the "Privilege" of paying >30% in taxes.

[Newfie]

If you buy into the Great American Dream (I no longer do) then educating people to their ability equips them to contribute to the collective good. Whereas NOT educating them they then require assistance and become a drag on society. It is ironic that freed public education is one of the foundations of American success. So if you buy that it only makes sense that, in a more technical world.folks need more education in order for America to thrive.

There are a lot of caveats...the education must be meaningful and useful.

BTW, I graduated college at 39, GI Bill and my own money. I've done well. But I've worked at it and have been very lucky. A degree unlocked doors for me but I don't know that it really gave me a better skill set. It just gave me the opportunity to do more OJT.

[Sixstrings]

How much is this free education going to cost taxpayers? If you want to talk about sparse details, that is one I would like an answer to.

According to Clinton's website:

This plan will cost around $350 billion over 10 years—and will be fully paid for by limiting certain tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

A bit from Sanders' website:

MAKE TUITION FREE AT PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.
This is not a radical idea. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition because they believed that charging students $1,300 per year was discouraging Germans from going to college. Next year, Chile will do the same. Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world also offer free college to all of their citizens. If other countries can take this action, so can the United States of America.

In fact, it’s what many of our colleges and universities used to do. The University of California system offered free tuition at its schools until the 1980s. In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243 and many of the best colleges – including the City University of New York – did not charge any tuition at all. The Sanders plan would make tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout the country. ...

FULLY PAID FOR BY IMPOSING A TAX ON WALL STREET SPECULATORS.

The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/

Comparing those two.. Clinton plan is $35 billion per year, and Sanders plan is $75 billion per year. The latter paid for by a very small wall street tax (think of it like a sales tax that's under 1%, it's a fraction of a percent per trade.. with middle class investors exempt).

Good thing about Sanders plan is that it would tax high frequency trading, which is a big scam to begin with. Bernie is right that most developed nations already have this kind of tax -- including Germany, UK, and China.

[vtsnowedin]

We don't need to tax credit default swaps and hedge fund speculation we need to end it.

[Tanada]

We don't need to tax credit default swaps and hedge fund speculation we need to end it.

VT for President 2016!

[vtsnowedin]

We don't need to tax credit default swaps and hedge fund speculation we need to end it.

VT for President 2016!

Considering the choices we have left today it is clear that we could do worse.

[Cog]

Ahh so another tax the rich scheme. Got it. Don't Democrats ever come up with a different playbook?

[Sixstrings]

Breaking news, Associated Press and NBC news have declared Clinton the presumptive nominee.

Some are saying this was an unfair thing for the media to do, the night before California votes.

edit: the way this unfolded was that thirteen more superdelegates confirmed to AP and NBC that they've pledged to vote clinton at the convention, so that's what put her over the top.

Sanders camp: Clinton has not secured nomination yet

a spokesman for Sen. Bernie Sanders slammed the media’s “rush to judgement.”

“It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgement, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee’s clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer,” spokesman Michael Briggs said Monday night.

“Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.

“Our job from now until the convention is to convince those superdelegates that Bernie is by far the strongest candidate against Donald Trump.”

Briggs also called in to MSNBC to talk with Rachel Maddow on Monday night.

"We think it’s important to give the voters their say and not cut off the process at this point," Briggs said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282435-sanders-camp-clinton-has-not-secured-nomination-yet

[Lore]

Breaking news, Associated Press and NBC news have declared Clinton the presumptive nominee.

Some are saying this was an unfair thing for the media to do, the night before California votes.

Unfair why? Was there ever a doubt at this point?

[Sixstrings]

Unfair why? Was there ever a doubt at this point?

Well, for starters it's the night before california votes, and it's neck and neck out there between clinton and sanders.

So now NBC /msnbc are all over the tv blaring they have declared Clinton the presumptive nominee.

NBC is not chairman of the Democratic Party.

Affecting the vote now, like this, means less votes for Sanders tomorrow.. and fewer progressive delegates at the convention..

Why not just let the party rules take their course, and how conventions are supposed to work? The more delegates bernie has, the more the platform would reflect his views. That's how it's supposed to work. It's bad enough there are something like 500 superdelegates to start with -- they shouldn't get to vote even before the convention starts, right?

P.S. I just heard some more reporting.. the 13 superdelegates that AP and NBC cited, *won't even give their names*. *They endorsed Clinton anonymously.*

[Lore]

It's not neck and neck. Hilary is ahead of Bernie in delegates, actual voters and super delegates.

[Sixstrings]

It's not neck and neck. Hilary is ahead of Bernie in delegates, actual voters and super delegates.

I meant in California. Which votes tomorrow. The day after msnbc declared Clinton presumptive nominee.

They were statistically tied:

California Democratic Presidential Primary
47.7Clinton 45.7Sanders
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html

It's just a little fishy lore, the NIGHT before? Suddenly 13 superdelegates decide they're for Clinton, yet don't give their names? Did THEY call AP and NBC, or did AP and NBC call THEM tonight? The night BEFORE the primary?

Why did AP choose to do this story *tonight*? That looks like sitting on a story, to influence events.

It's not obvious to you that this is an effort to push on the scales for clinton in california?

It's the night before the vote.

You have to admit it's a bit tacky, no? The DNC / media could have at least waited until after California voted.

P.S. It's just odd to me.. it's not President Obama (highest elected Democrat) or DNC chair or senators or anyone else declaring clinton presumptive nominee.. but rather, it's the media.

2nd P.S. ... I'm really just complaining about the liberal media. And likely AP was in cahoots on this too, but their article sounded neutral at least and then it's pro clinton media outlets that are running with "clinton is declared presumptive nominee"

[Lore]

California will not make any difference. She will most likely have the nomination wrapped up as soon as the call is made in New Jersey tomorrow.

I believe it's premature by several hours as well. This announcement doesn't favor either candidate for tomorrow's vote. NBC interviewed a slug of super delegates and found the majority pledged to Clinton.

[Sixstrings]

California will not make any difference. She will most likely have the nomination wrapped up as soon as the call is made in New Jersey tomorrow.

Would it have hurt though, to let bernie and the bernie people win cali?

[Lore]

According to the news she already has the requisite number of 2,384 delegates.

[Sixstrings]

According to the news she already has the requisite number of 2,384 delegates.

Mmkay, let me break this down for ya.

* Superdelegates are free agents. They're mostly elected Democratic office holders. Lots of the congressmen, senators, etc., and governors, etc. And then some are honorary, for example Bill Clinton is a superdelegate.

* There has been NO official superdelegate vote, as yet. THAT is in July at the Democratic Party convention.

* Clinton will NOT have enough EARNED delegates to clinch the nomination (from voters).

* Sanders will NOT have enough earned delegates, either.

* Therefore, the decision rests with the superdelegates. Bernie has a RIGHT to campaign for these votes and their official vote is not until whenever it is in July, at the convention.

LASTLY -- she ought to just come out in favor of $15 minimum wage, some eco stances, some wall street reform that bernie would be happy with, and some other things he is asking for.

And then okay, she can have his millions of voters (including ME, most likely, if she'd truly do right by bernie and his stances on the issues).

[Lore]

The super delegates counted have already stated their position to vote for Clinton at the convention. It would be unprecedented for them to change their vote and go against the majority popular vote and pledged delegates.