Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 05, 2018

Stockton, California made national news last October when it announced it would host the first US experiment in basic income, a system of wealth distribution in which people receive a standard salary just for being alive. The plan, spearheaded by Stockton's 27-year-old mayor, Michael Tubbs, will likely begin sometime in August 2018 and involve at least 100 people of varying income levels getting $500 a month for three years. Ever since it declared bankruptcy in 2012, Stockton has been in recovery-mode, and Tubbs sees basic income -- a growing topic of discussion around the world over the past couple years -- as one way to rehabilitate the city.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Stockton, California

Well they need to attract people, they have been losing people, in a state that is increasing population at a dramatic rate, this says alot. This is a good way to attract people .... perhaps not the people Tubbs wants to attract, but it will then bring in more State and Federal dollars ...

Tubbs is a good guy, I am sure he means well.... but I doubt this will end up with what he envisioned...

#1 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-04 02:11 PM | Reply

"a system of wealth distribution in which people receive a standard salary just for being alive."

Sounds like a good complement to what we've got; a system of wealth distribution in which some people receive wealth just for being born to wealthy parents.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Stockton here I come!

--Snoofy

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-04 02:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

Great idea for a city that filed for bankruptcy 5 years ago and whose budget is still under court supervision.

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-04 02:40 PM | Reply

#3

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

-San Diego

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-04 02:41 PM | Reply

Isn't Stockton still bankrupt?

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-04 02:54 PM | Reply

Does Stockton Junior College have free college tuition?

--Snoofy

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-04 02:57 PM | Reply

California state schools used to have free college tuition, remember those days Nulli?

Here's a refresher:

1921: California colleges begin to charge "incidental fees" of $25 per year to cover non-instruction related services. Non-California residents are charged $75 per year for tuition, but residents are still tuition-free.

1960: The Master Plan for Higher Education in California maintains that tuition at University of California and state colleges should be free, but that fees are necessary to help cover non-instructional costs. "The two governing boards reaffirm the long established principle that state colleges and the University of California shall be free to all residents of the state."

1966: Ronald Reagan assumed office of Governor of California and changed the course of the state's higher education system. In his eight years, he cut state funding for college and universities and laid the foundation for a tuition-based system.

According to a New York Times article from 1982, during his eight years as governor, "Reagan fought hard in the legislature to impose tuition at four-year colleges. He lost the battle to lobbyists for the university, ... However, the Legislature agreed to increase student registration fees." www.abc10.com

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 03:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thanks, Reagan!

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 03:16 PM | Reply

I like how "free" has become a euphemism for "somebody else paid for it".

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-04 03:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

Free has plenty of meanings and that's one of them. It's not a euphemism.

I see where you're going; e.g when we call it "Free Speech" we should really understand that there are costs associated, and that's why we pay our taxes to build a society where that principle is defended, by force if necessary.

So yeah. I didn't think anyone was laboring under the impression that free college tuition meant that there were no costs associated with providing it for free.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 03:31 PM | Reply

I like how "libertarian" has become a political euphemism for "Scrooge."

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most followers of Ayn Rand are scrooge like.

Some are even proud of this.

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-04 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does Stockton Junior College have free college tuition?
--Snoofy
#7 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-02-04 02:57 PM | FLAG: Redundant

#14 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-04 04:10 PM | Reply

"Most followers of Ayn Rand are scrooge like."

It's a shame there aren't any ghosts to help educate them.
Because that's what it takes.
A supernatural intervention.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 04:13 PM | Reply

California state schools used to have free college tuition, remember those days Nulli? ~ Snoofy

You might be too young to remember, but do you know how that "free college tuition" was paid for?

By a property tax that kept increasing to the point it was displacing retirees and the elderly, and out pacing incomes. Or what you call "Scrooges" .....

So go ahead and have your "free tuition" fantasy, the cost of course was elderly and poor getting kicked to the curb.

If your parents have a home today that they have had since you were a little kid, you can be thankful they still have it as opposed to getting kicked out of their home by high property taxes, so you can get a "free education"..

Its all about you remember Snoofy....

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-04 04:32 PM | Reply

#16 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

A better educated society should equate to better competition, higher productivity, improved economy. We've been told up and down that a higher powered economic engine, and low taxes, will benefit EVERYONE.

This couldn't be a compromise to consider?

#17 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-04 05:15 PM | Reply

"By a property tax that kept increasing to the point it was displacing retirees and the elderly, and out pacing incomes. Or what you call "Scrooges" ..... "

Whereas now, it's college-educated Google and Apple employees earning so much, the cost of real estate itself is displacing retirees and the elderly.

Now, there's no tax cut that can provide shelter for those retirees.

Congratulations Reagan, built did that.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

built did that, I gotta remember that one.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 06:13 PM | Reply

"If your parents have a home today that they have had since you were a little kid, you can be thankful they still have it as opposed to getting kicked out of their home by high property taxes"

My parents aren't in the income bracket that gets kicked out by high property taxes.

Lay it on the line: You think California is a better place than it was fifty years ago?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 06:20 PM | Reply

I like how "free" has become a euphemism for "somebody else paid for it".

#10 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Like those "free" tax cuts for the wealthy that our grandchildren will be paying for? Yeah. Weird.

TNSTAAFL.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-04 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I didn't think anyone was laboring under the impression that free college tuition meant that there were no costs associated with providing it for free.

#11 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-02-04 03:31 PM | REPLY

You don't get out much then.

#22 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-04 07:17 PM | Reply

I don't get out much to parts where people haven't heard "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

Maybe they don't have that saying in Texas. I don't get out much there either.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 07:53 PM | Reply

I don't get out much to parts where people haven't heard "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

Translation: I don't get out much.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-04 08:53 PM | Reply

Seriously, who doesn't know TANSTAAFL?
It even has its own acronym!

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 09:59 PM | Reply

TANSTASFP, either.

#26 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-02-04 10:18 PM | Reply

#26:

"The funny thing about sex you pay for vs. sex you get for free, is the sex you get for free ends up costing more."

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-04 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am a lefty, but my economist friends tell me that basic income schemes have lowered the desire to work everywhere they have been tried.
A better option would be to double the first 500 per month earned.

#28 | Posted by bored at 2018-02-05 12:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#28

While I agree with your premise, what do you do when no jobs are available?

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-05 01:24 AM | Reply

I just wonder if one has to prove being a citizen and have an ID to get the monies, or can any illegal come to Stockton and qualify? Being Calif I believe it would be unfair to deny anyone and/or require a photo ID as that is racist.

#30 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-02-05 01:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#30

Though I'm sure they're figuring it out.

I'd say three to five years residency should be required.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-05 01:34 AM | Reply

you have to end the drug wars first. to make real progress.

#32 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-02-05 03:50 AM | Reply

"There's no such thing as a free lunch."

#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-02-04 07:53 PM | REPLY

Thank you for noting free doesn't exist. You should stop using the word free, and go with an accurate description. "Taxpayer funded".

#33 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-05 10:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

go with an accurate description. "Taxpayer funded".

#33 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

"Accurate" seems to a subjective term to some people.

One could just as easily say it was "American Funded". Sounds a lot better, huh? Just as "accurate"?

Free doesn't exist. You could also say it was a "loan".

Or you could say it was funded by America or are California or (your state here) so that Education could be "free" or (at least affordable) to the hoi polloi.

So... we all know (or should know by now) that there is no such thing as a "free" lunch.

But, we as a group, (called Americans) have to decided to do things for the General Welfare of our Society. We even made a Contract with our past selves so we wouldn't forget. So. We took up a collection (taxes) and made it happen. And so it helps the General Welfare. As our Forefathers planned.

Like roads. And lights. Etc.

We Democrats understand this completely.

Why do Conservatives have such a hard time with this concept?

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-05 01:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If there's no such thing as free, which you happily admit, stop calling it free. It's not rocket surgery.

#35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-05 01:46 PM | Reply

I know, I know, marketing.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-05 01:47 PM | Reply

Sitz.

California higher education was taxpayer funded then, and it's still taxpayer funded now. It's just also funded by the student now too.

Your little attempt to play semantics glosses over that difference.

Why would you want to do that?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 01:51 PM | Reply

I find humor in how "free" has become a euphemism for "somebody else paid for it".

Euphemism: a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

Defining free as taxation by force as you noted earlier is a pretty funny euphemism, despite your claims it's an idiom.

#38 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-05 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You'd have to think "somebody else paid" is a bad thing for "free" to be its euphemism.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 03:25 PM | Reply

"Defining free as taxation by force"

Nobody's doing that.
Free here means "at no cost to the recipent."
And it's neither inaccurate or misleading.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 03:29 PM | Reply

"considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing."

Yeah.
I'm not embarrassed by taxes.
They're not so unpleasant that I can't call them "taxes."
Taxpayer funded public schools provide free education to students. This... isn't controversial.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 03:36 PM | Reply

"I'm not embarrassed by taxes."

How much in property and income taxes do you pay a year?

#42 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-05 03:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Snoofy you did it up thread. Now you didn't. Yeah, still funny.

#43 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-05 04:01 PM | Reply

"How much in property and income taxes do you pay a year?"

Why the harsh language, Eberly?

Please use a euphemism for the T Word, or you'll offend the libertatian.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 04:06 PM | Reply

"If there's no such thing as free, which you happily admit, stop calling it free."

You really are going to keep pretending you can't understand that "free" means from the perspective of the student, and the alternative is having the student pay directly.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 04:10 PM | Reply

It's not harsh and you know it.

How much in property and income taxes do you pay in a year?

I pay nearly $50K a year. I take issue with where tax dollars are being spent. I'm not a libertarian nor do I think we are outrageously over taxed either. Most of my complaints over taxes are local in nature...not federal.

Before you continue to lecture anybody here about taxes aren't "unpleasant", answer the question.

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-05 04:33 PM | Reply

I have no idea Eberly.

Do I have to go ask my landlord how much his property taxes are? My rent pays those for him, right? For free, one might say...

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 04:35 PM | Reply

But.. How does my answer even matter?
And why didn't you ask about capital gains tax, sales tax, fuel tax, washing machine tariffs, etc?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 04:36 PM | Reply

And why didn't you ask about capital gains tax, sales tax, fuel tax, washing machine tariffs, etc?

#48 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'm pretty sure you know why he didn't.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-05 04:40 PM | Reply

"Before you continue to lecture anybody here about taxes aren't "unpleasant"

They're no so freaking unpleasant you can't utter the word "taxes" though.

So, euphemisms are not really in play here.

"Free college education" is not a euphemism. Everybody understands what the phrase means, and what it entails. Even you and Sitz.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 04:41 PM | Reply

-And why didn't you ask about capital gains tax, sales tax, fuel tax, washing machine tariffs, etc?

I don't mean to exclude those taxes because they aren't taxes....they are.

you can estimate those as well, if you like.

but......answer the question....or STFU about it.

You don't want to answer because....well....you know why and it's obvious to everyone here.

You could just be truthful and tell us....or deflect like you are now.

answer......or STFU about it.

#51 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-05 04:53 PM | Reply

"Free college education" is not a euphemism. Everybody understands what the phrase means, and what it entails. Even you and Sitz.

#50 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-02-05 04:41 PM | FLAG:

Yes, I understand it's a euphemism. You do too.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-02-05 04:59 PM | Reply

"Do I have to go ask my landlord how much his property taxes are? "

I'll gladly cut you some slack on that. Some of your rent goes to property taxes your landlord has to pay.

well?

#53 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-05 05:06 PM | Reply

"Yes, I understand it's a euphemism."

You apparently don't understand what a euphemism is.

Beyond that, college in California has always been taxpayer funded, and is today. It's just not free any more. But it was taxpayer funded when it was free, and it is still taxpayer funded when it's not free.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 05:36 PM | Reply

"I'll gladly cut you some slack on that."

Okay, but I don't see how I need any slack cut.

Assuming property taxes are about a mortgage payment, and my rent is presumably somewhat more than a monthly mortgage payment, I guess that's about $1,000 whole dollars.

There was a fun discussion the past few days about whether $1,000 whole dollars is "chump change"... What say you Eberly?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 05:47 PM | Reply

Snoofy. nevermind.

I'll just skip to the part where it's obvious you don't pay taxes of any consequence but think it's fine for me to just pay my taxes and STFU about it.

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-05 05:53 PM | Reply

"you don't pay taxes of any consequence"

Prefect, I'll pencil you in for "$1K is chump change" then.

Always nice when we can agree on the obvious, Eberly, even as others struggle to find the clarity we enjoy.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 05:58 PM | Reply

So, $1,000 is all you pay?

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-05 06:29 PM | Reply

"it's fine for me to just pay my taxes and STFU about it."

You seem unable to STFU about my taxes, though.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 06:53 PM | Reply

59

Lack of taxes paid, really.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-05 09:05 PM | Reply

Indeed, my glass is half full.
Not as full as Trump's, but then, whose is?

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-05 09:06 PM | Reply

But it was taxpayer funded when it was free,- Snoofy

This is an entitlement.

and it is still taxpayer funded when it's not free.

This is a subsidy ...

I would be willing Snoofy from a moral perspective to have taxpayers fund your professors salaries, computers and the library.

After that the tab is all yours, the buildings, the student center administrative costs et al....

Students need skin in the game to care, to avoid using it to just waste their time, and taxpayer money. I have no ill will for a person trying to make themselves better on my dime, so long as they are paying their fair share.

Everybody understands what the phrase means, and what it entails. Even you and Sitz.
#50 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I disagree, regretfully, I don't believe people understand where the money comes from, nor do they care.

Just throwing this out there, if you asked people what "Free College" means, very few will mention taxpayers without leading them on, just a hunch, but give it a go, run your own little experiment.

#62 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-05 11:07 PM | Reply

"Just throwing this out there, if you asked people what "Free College" means, very few will mention taxpayers without leading them on, just a hunch, but give it a go, run your own little experiment."

Because it's so obvious it goes without saying.
Q: Who pays for all this?
A: Uh... I dunno... how does the government pay for anything... Taxes?

Is there a big problem with the conceptualization here?

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 12:09 AM | Reply

Is there a big problem with the conceptualization here?

Considering that most people that get "free" stuff from the government pay no income taxes, the answer to that question seems pretty obvious.

#64 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-06 12:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Is there a big problem with the conceptualization here?
#63 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You are asking the wrong people ...

Don't ask me Snoofy, ask people in your dormitory, how does "Free Tuition" work....

Ask them what "Free Tuition" means

Q: Who pays for all this?

Again, very few will mention taxpayers without leading them on....

#65 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-06 12:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here is my guess about your scenario, you can even ask just for kicks and grins...

Q: Who pays for all this?
A: Uh... I dunno... the government?

#66 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-06 12:39 AM | Reply

Here is my guess about your scenario, you can even ask just for kicks and grins...

Q: Who pays for all this?
A: Uh... I dunno... the government?

#67 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-06 12:39 AM | Reply

Q: Who pays for all this?
A: Uh... I dunno... the government?

#67 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

We the People. We are certainly not a Perfect Union but at least California is working on it. How much does your state lottery pay 💰for education in your state?

static.www.calottery.com

#68 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-06 12:55 AM | Reply

"Students need skin in the game to care, to avoid using it to just waste their time, and taxpayer money. I have no ill will for a person trying to make themselves better on my dime, so long as they are paying their fair share."

Maybe CA should start by experimenting with targeted majors that are in short supply. STEM, medical, things like that. Of course CA would also need some mechanism to recoup their investment. The state isn't doing itself any favors if the recent grad decides to take their degree and head off to another state where the standard of living is higher.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 07:31 AM | Reply

Wow, how is it that one state can continue to elect politicians who do the same thing over and over again, get the same results, and then try the same thing again. CA is always in financial trouble. And their answer is always "Let's be Liberal and just give everything away, that will make the state richer!" It really does seem like people think that Liberal ideology is enough to govern people. Just because giving people money to live sounds like a fantastic idea, an idea doesn't actually pay the bills. You can keep trying to make the idea work but it won't and history has already shown you that.

The second biggest ridiculous flaw here is that they are trying $500??? Seriously? A state FULL of people who claim people need a living wage are going to test a grand idea by using $500 for 100 families? They are demanding $15/hr minimum wage which comes to $31200 a year based on 40 hours a week and 52 weeks. That comes down to 2600 a month and I assume they take out 20% for taxes (I'm not sure, I worked hard in my life and got an education and I only know how bad I'm getting robbed every check I get so I don't know what the tax rate is for those who choose not to) so that leaves $2080. So, the same people who are absolutely furious that people can't live off of anything less than 15/hr are now saying they want a program that will provide $500. All that will do is push the ones already making a wage to be richer while the ones who are at the very bottom are still going to be trying to survive off of almost nothing. Hmmm...where have I heard extensive arguments about this before and how the wealth gap is a bad thing. Oh yeah, California. Jesus Christ those people are stupid over there.

#70 | Posted by humtake at 2018-02-06 11:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#70 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

The second biggest ridiculous flaw here is that they are trying $500???

Dumtake, under UBI, there is no reason the income can't be supplemental. This isn't some "get-out-of-work" panacea for lazy conservatives.

#71 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-06 12:14 PM | Reply

We Democrats understand this completely.
Why do Conservatives have such a hard time with this concept?

#34 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

I'm not saying the correlation between education and conservatism has anything to do with it but....

#72 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-06 12:20 PM | Reply

"Considering that most people that get "free" stuff from the government pay no income taxes, the answer to that question seems pretty obvious.
#64 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

Two things:

1. Why is income tax burden the right-wingers way of determining of who's unworthy to participate in government programs? What's the thinking there?

2. In this case we're talking about high school graduates about to enter college. How much income, let alone tax, do you think that demographic commands?

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 12:27 PM | Reply

"How much does your state lottery pay 💰for education in your state?"

About one percent.

Maybe we should only offer "free" higher education if you can prove you bought a scratch-off.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 12:47 PM | Reply

Shouldn't you income tax obsessed right-wingers be asking:

How much more income tax will be generated if we fund higher education, and will it be revenue positive to do so?

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 01:01 PM | Reply

If I had to pick one, I'd rather tax dollars went to education rather than the Military Ind. Complex to sustain lost, useless wars to the tune of trillions...

#76 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-02-06 01:04 PM | Reply

According to historians, the GI bill (free college for vets after WWII) returned $7 in tax receipts for every $1 invested. How is that not a good investment? Why would that not apply in the same way to non-vets? Especially if it included, for the non-academically advanced, "skilled labor" training, like electrician, HVAC, plumbing, auto repair, etc.? Those are good-paying jobs that generate taxes and benefit the local economy as well as Federal taxes.

How is it "conservative" to not invest in the country we live in? Those skills are also needed to update and maintain the infrastructure (which also has a positive ROI).

Stingy is not the same thing as conservative. Real Conservatives believe in investment.

#77 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-06 01:36 PM | Reply

I don't think these right-wingers have a counter argument for that.

Just don't ever say that the GI Bill provided Veterans with a "free" education.

That's really the only thing they've "argued:" semamtics.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 02:13 PM | Reply

"According to historians, the GI bill (free college for vets after WWII) returned $7 in tax receipts for every $1 invested. How is that not a good investment?"

The G.I. Bill was "free college" anymore than their paychecks were "free money." They were a benefit offered in return for the contribution of labor, and in many cases a limb or two.

"Why would that not apply in the same way to non-vets? Especially if it included, for the non-academically advanced, "skilled labor" training, like electrician, HVAC, plumbing, auto repair, etc.? Those are good-paying jobs that generate taxes and benefit the local economy as well as Federal taxes."

I think it would almost certainly be beneficial. Especially with the programs you mention, which tend to be rejected by college-age USans in favor of flashier degrees that offer less value to potential employers. Like the majority of liberal arts degrees.

What I would like to see is a system set up similar to the ROTC programs that are available at most colleges today, where the Federal Government pays for tutition and subsidizes the cost of living, in return for a number of years of public service. Using the medical field as an example, the government will pay the tution for a medical student, and in return they serve for five years (iirc) as a military doctor. They will initially earn far less than their civilian peers, but once their term of service is complete, they can enter the private market, and do so without having hundreds of thousands of dollars in student debt. A program like this could be used to fill gaps in the current healthcare system where there are shortages of medical personnel. This could be especially helpful with regards to low income patients, who are unlikely to ever get timely care-even under a single-payer system.

#79 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 06:47 PM | Reply

"If I had to pick one, I'd rather tax dollars went to education rather than the Military Ind. Complex to sustain lost, useless wars to the tune of trillions..."

At the end of the day, many of those trillions are going to provide jobs for millions. Many of them union factory jobs at companies like Boeing and LockMart. Not to mention the tens of thousands employed as union GS employees.

#80 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We the People. We are certainly not a Perfect Union but at least California is working on it.

Income inequality is highest in the nation .. is that your idea of a PerfectUnion


How much does your state lottery pay 💰for education in your state?
static.www.calottery.com
#68 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Why would you promote gambling among the poor?

According to historians, the GI bill (free college for vets after WWII) returned $7 in tax receipts for every $1 invested. How is that not a good investment? Why would that not apply in the same way to non-vets? Especially if it included, for the non-academically advanced, "skilled labor" training, like electrician, HVAC, plumbing, auto repair, etc.? Those are good-paying jobs that generate taxes and benefit the local economy as well as Federal taxes.

To repeat: I would be willing, from a moral perspective to have taxpayers fund professors salaries, computers and the library.
After that the tab is all the students, the buildings, the student center administrative costs et al.... UC thats 75% of the cost is aux, and 60% in CSU, why is that?
Students need skin in the game to care, to avoid using it to just waste their time, and taxpayer money. I have no ill will for a person trying to make themselves better on my dime, so long as they are paying their fair share.

I am a big proponent of trade schools and skilled labor.

The problem Liberals don't address is the money ends up wasted, $12K a year per student K-12, where does that money go? Hint: It aint goin to the teachers.

#81 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-06 07:01 PM | Reply

Just don't ever say that the GI Bill provided Veterans with a "free" education. ~ Snoofy

Its a benefit in exchange for work .... how can you not understand that? the answer is right in the statement.

And you think people know "Free tuition" means taxpayer funded, seriously?

#82 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-06 07:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Its a benefit in exchange for work .... how can you not understand that? the answer is right in the statement."

I can understannd it, but it's wrong.

"In exchange for" is attempting to apply some sort of after-the-fact transactional financial framework to this issue. Like there was a commercial exchange, the consumer did something, the state-vendor gave something in return.

So, I understand it, but it's wrong.

This has been a vehicle for you and others to sort of moralize that the government shouldn't provide benefits to people who don't work.

But that's not an argument based in anything other than your wish that the government wouldn't provide so many benefits, and specifically not to people who don't work.

You're relying on the fact that you don't think the government should provide benefits to people who don't work to argue against free tuition.

You haven't discussed free tuition as its own issue, you're just saying that the government shouldn't provide benefits to people who don't work, and since free tuition would be such a thing, you're against it.

You haven't said why, other than the obvious, which is you're opposed to the government providing benefits to people who don't work.

One more thing: Calling the actions undertaken by those who served in WW2 "work" is not a fair description or a fair comparison. It's also not the case that they willfully signed up to serve in exchange for the GI Bill later. Most of them simply got drafted, and the GI Bill didn't come about until 1944.

But let me put it to you this way: We shouldn't need a war to raise a crop of college educated high-tech workers.

Let me also put it to you this way: Would you rather there be more Americans or highly qualified foreigners working with H1-B Visas in America's high tech sector? If you said "More Americans," can't you see how free college tuition works towards that goal?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 08:13 PM | Reply

#82

This article appeared here on DR a few years ago. In a nutshell, it's one man's explanation on why he defaulted on his expensive, private school student loans when he realized that the economic value of his education was never going to justify the cost.

www.nytimes.com

If you read through it, it's a tome on entitlement and class.

The author is old...he took out his loan in the 1970s, but I think the underlying sense off entitlement is the same. If you pay half a million for a degree, regardless of the nature of the degree, you expect to join the WASP ranks. The author literally says as much:

"Maybe the problem was that I had reached beyond my lower-middle-class origins and taken out loans to attend a small private college to begin with. Maybe I should have stayed at a store called The Wild Pair, where I once had a nice stable job selling shoes after dropping out of the state college because I thought I deserved better, and naïvely tried to turn myself into a professional reader and writer on my own, without a college degree. I'd probably be district manager by now.

Or maybe, after going back to school, I should have gone into finance, or some other lucrative career. Self-disgust and lifelong unhappiness, destroying a precious young life -- all this is a small price to pay for meeting your student loan obligations.

..And when it turns out that the Manhattan socialites don't want to invite you to thier cocktail parties and mixers, then it's the lenders who are at fault.

#84 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 08:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The problem Liberals don't address is the money ends up wasted, $12K a year per student K-12, where does that money go? Hint: It aint goin to the teachers."

I tend to agree, but I don't see conservatives addressing it either.
They just want that same money to go to private schools in vouchers, where there's even less accounting oversight.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 08:14 PM | Reply

"But let me put it to you this way: We shouldn't need a war to raise a crop of college educated high-tech workers."

True. But we also have no need to provide scolarhips for people who want to go into fields that will likely have little or no econmic value. Like paying for a jouralism degree at NYU. Let the rich kids do that. Or those who are willing to take out a ahalf million in loans because they want to "write."

#86 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-06 08:16 PM | Reply

"If you read through it, it's a tome on entitlement and class."

Did you agree with it roughly 100% like I did?

"Instead of guaranteeing loans, the government would have to guarantee a college education."

Imagine that.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 08:20 PM | Reply

"But we also have no need to provide scolarhips for people who want to go into fields that will likely have little or no econmic value."

Need is a poorly chosen word there, because we don't "need" to do anything, we can all just go live in the woods, according do you. Sorry, not falling for your ridiculous "needs" based argument again.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 08:21 PM | Reply

I'm not sure MadBomber.

This student loan defaulter as the financial equivalent of a person who decides he can go live in the woods.

Is he doing anything wrong???

Take a step back, can consumers ever do anything wrong? I thought your philosophy is the voluntary nature of the market means that all the outcomes it produces are good ones. They've been blessed via the same sort of transactional framework Mackris tries to fit the world into in #82. Where one party gives something, the other gets something, and they both agreed on what to give and get.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 08:27 PM | Reply

"But we also have no need to provide scolarhips for people who want to go into fields that will likely have little or no econmic value."

There are values other than economic value, is one very obvious reason, and it's sort of weird somebody has to point out to you.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 08:32 PM | Reply

"..And when it turns out that the Manhattan socialites don't want to invite you to thier cocktail parties and mixers, then it's the lenders who are at fault."

Pure projection on your part? Certainly not in the article.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-06 08:35 PM | Reply

The "conservative" view of the value of the humanities is reminiscent of Stalin. Or the drones in that famous 1984 Mac commercial. Or, I guess, art, music, philosophy and basic scientific research are just for people who don't need to work for a living (trust fund babies?). What is civilization without the humanities? How can you have civilization if you don't pay for it (TAANSTAFL)? All the other OECD countries have "free" or at least highly subsidized higher education (along with a lot of other benefits/services Americans don't get for their tax money). Why don't you want to compete with them? It seems like you're more interested in competing with third world countries. What's the point of that?

#92 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-02-06 10:08 PM | Reply

The GI Bill is not a "free" totally education.

For the Montgomery GI Bill, I had to pay $1200, a lot for a private in the early 90's.

And then, when the new post GI Bill came out, I had to add another $600. The return on that "investment" I made was enormous, a B.A. degree and two Master's.

I like the way Florida does it, they use the lottery to fund most secondary educations. Problem is, making sure most lottery funds don't go to administration instead of students.

#93 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-07 07:47 AM | Reply

"There are values other than economic value, is one very obvious reason, and it's sort of weird somebody has to point out to you."

If you or someone else wants to write someone a check so they can play video games for four years after college, I'm sure they would be very appreciative. But I don't know that the average taxpayer would consider that a prudent use of funds.

A good rule of thumb is, if it's considered a hobby by most people, you shouldn't choose it as a major.

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 08:03 AM | Reply

"Pure projection on your part? Certainly not in the article."

To quote: "Maybe the problem was that I had reached beyond my lower-middle-class origins and taken out loans to attend a small private college to begin with. Maybe I should have stayed at a store called The Wild Pair, where I once had a nice stable job selling shoes after dropping out of the state college because I thought I deserved better, and naïvely tried to turn myself into a professional reader and writer on my own, without a college degree. I'd probably be district manager by now."

The author had the expectation that spending a lot of money on a degree was going to catapult him into a different social class. And had he majored in something that demanded a higher wage, that might have been the case.

Of course the author was adamantly against going into a career that would demand a higher wage: "Or maybe, after going back to school, I should have gone into finance, or some other lucrative career. Self-disgust and lifelong unhappiness, destroying a precious young life -- all this is a small price to pay for meeting your student loan obligations."

The author is clearly frustrated at how society could not recognize his importance, despite the fact that he spent a lot of money on his degree.

#95 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 08:08 AM | Reply

Years later, I found myself confronted with a choice that too many people have had to and will have to face. I could give up what had become my vocation (in my case, being a writer) and take a job that I didn't want in order to repay the huge debt I had accumulated in college and graduate school.

The author is clearly frustrated at how society could not recognize his importance

You are correct, Mad.

This person is mad because their chosen vocation doesn't pay $200K a year. He's also come to the realization that he has no marketable skill. He took the easy way in school to get a degree. Philosophizing isn't hard. He strikes me as childish. Someone who thought that everyone should have known how grand they were, that he should have gotten RCADE level journalistic credentials right out of school.

All children suffer from this, when the reality hits them that they aren't a snowflake..

#96 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-07 08:34 AM | Reply

While crazy california politicians are promoting goofy social-engineering schemes, we actually have real problems.

"Los Angeles has the world's worst traffic congestion -- again

U.S. cities dominate the world's top 10 most-traffic-congested urban areas, with Los Angeles leading in mind-numbing and costly gridlock, according to a new report issued Tuesday.

La La Land, with its jam-packed freeways and driving culture despite billions being poured into rail transit, emerged from the 1,360 other cities in 38 countries to claim the worst-congestion title for the sixth consecutive year in the 2017 traffic scorecard by INRIX, a leader in transportation analytics and connected car services.

#97 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-07 09:24 AM | Reply

"The author is clearly frustrated at how society could not recognize his importance, despite the fact that he spent a lot of money on his degree."

I don't read it that way. According to the comments the guy has a $2M home in a nice suburb.

He's frustrated by a loan he can't get out from under, not "society's" lack of recognition of his "importance."

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 12:33 PM | Reply

"U.S. cities dominate the world's top 10 most-traffic-congested urban areas"

Wouldn't be like that if we taxed the hell out of gas...

Or, locally, if LA didn't sell their public transit sysyem to the auto industry, who closed it to help sell cars.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 12:36 PM | Reply

"This person is mad because their chosen vocation doesn't pay $200K a year."

Honestly he doesbt even sound mad in the article.

It does sound like you are mad at him, though. For not paying back what he owes; for choosing to be a "deadbeat," is my guess.

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 12:39 PM | Reply

--Wouldn't be like that if we taxed the hell out of gas...

Would have been a good idea, which I favored, in the 70s. Now it's too late; southern california has been paved over by freeways. In any event, overpopulation is the real problem, created by growth-crazy politicians from Edmund G. Brown to his son, Moonbeam, and all the governors in-between.

#101 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-07 02:31 PM | Reply

- overpopulation is the real problem,

I guess it always is during a labor shortage... wait, what?

#102 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-07 02:36 PM | Reply

-overpopulation is the real problem,
I guess it always is during a labor shortage... wait, what?

#102 | POSTED BY CORKY

Yes CA has plenty of people: www.nytimes.com

#103 | Posted by PinkyanTheBrain at 2018-02-07 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I hear some new colonies will be opening up on Mars soon.

#104 | Posted by Daniel at 2018-02-07 02:54 PM | Reply

"He's frustrated by a loan he can't get out from under, not "society's" lack of recognition of his "importance."

He lives in a $2M house...and he can't pay his student loans off?

#105 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 03:46 PM | Reply

He chose not to pay them off, because it would be a waste of money to do so.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 03:47 PM | Reply

"growth-crazy politicians"

It's capitalism that demands growth, politicians simply heed the call.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 03:48 PM | Reply

105/106

sounds like a deadbeat to me.

#108 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-07 03:55 PM | Reply

--I hear some new colonies will be opening up on Mars soon.

Hopefully some of the fake environmentalists who used to talk about overpopulation will be among the first colonists.

#109 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-07 03:58 PM | Reply

105/106
sounds like a deadbeat to me.

#108 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Same here. You don't just not pay off your car loan because you determined, after the fact, that the car was overpriced.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 03:58 PM | Reply

#108 Sounds like you're jealous of his $2M home to me.

I don't actualy think you're jealous... much.

But I do think you are smart enough to recognize paying off a loan that's ballooned to 7x the original amount would be throwing "good money after bad," and if you'd advise a client to do that, you'd arguably be betraying your fiduciary responsibility.

But hey, if you're just here to moralize on financial matters, without getting into any of those icky financial realities, I understand. Everyone loves to moralize, especially about people whose morals don't live up to yours and whose bank account far exceeds yours.

#111 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 04:01 PM | Reply

"You don't just not pay off your car loan because you determined, after the fact, that the car was overpriced."

Maybe you don't
But it's a free country.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 04:02 PM | Reply

"I don't actualy think you're jealous... much."

that's right.

"paying off a loan that's ballooned to 7x the original amount"

I'm sure a deal can be struck if this deadbeat was interested....then again, he could have done that originally and didn't.

Instead he went out and bought a home.

Can we repossess his home to pay this back?

#113 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-07 04:14 PM | Reply

--Can we repossess his home to pay this back?

Good idea. Sell it and pay off the loans and give him whatever's left back, minus huge deadbeat fees.

#114 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-07 04:22 PM | Reply

"Can we repossess his home to pay this back?"

What's this "we" stuff?
You... got money coming your way if he pays off this debt?
I thought you sold insurance, not student loans.

#115 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 04:25 PM | Reply

#113, 114

Or maybe youte just moralizing on financial matters without getting into any of the icky financial realities.

It's probably that.

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 04:27 PM | Reply

"Sounds like you're jealous of his $2M home to me."

Just like with everything else you buy on credit...the lenders should have seen this coming. I don't really have much more sympathy for them than I do for any of the other lenders who extend credit to those who aren't worth the credit being offered. There are quite a few stories like this out there, and they almost always involve someone going to an expensive school who is majoring in something that is not likely to generate an income that would justify the cost of the education.

I think this guy is reasonably smart. He may live in a $2M dollar house, but it's probably not in his name. In fact he probably doesn't have anything to his name...just in case the debt collectors want to collect. And it sounds like he has a lot that they could collect if they chose to do so.

#117 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 05:15 PM | Reply

"I think this guy is reasonably smart."

Me too.

Smart enough to stop throwing good money after bad, at least.

And get five books published.

#118 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 05:45 PM | Reply

"And get five books published."

And not have his $2M house taken by debt collectors.

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 05:49 PM | Reply

"You... got money coming your way if he pays off this debt?"

I'm a citizen.

#120 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-07 06:27 PM | Reply

--"I think this guy is reasonably smart."

A smart grifter, perhaps.

#121 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-07 06:35 PM | Reply

what is this guy's excuse for never paying the loan in the first place?

Not years later after it's ballooned upward.

#122 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-07 06:44 PM | Reply

"what is this guy's excuse for never paying the loan in the first place?"

Did you read the article? He was entitled. Period.

I don't think he could have invented more childish excuses for not playing off his loans.

#123 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-07 07:21 PM | Reply

"what is this guy's excuse for never paying the loan in the first place? "

Excuse?
What are you talking about?
He defaulted.
His reasons are clear, even if you can't allow yourself to see them.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 07:50 PM | Reply

"He was entitled. Period."

Are you saying he wasn't? Question.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 07:50 PM | Reply

"He defaulted.
His reasons are clear"

Life's not fair. Nice excuse.

#126 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-07 08:39 PM | Reply

Did this unfair world bless this guy witha $2 million home or not?

#127 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-07 08:42 PM | Reply

"Life's not fair. Nice excuse."

He doesnt need your excuse.
I dont know who in this life does,
But it sure ain't him.

You're just moralizing. And you're about as moral as a broken record.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 11:15 AM | Reply

"Did this unfair world bless this guy witha $2 million home or not?"

Back to jealousy I see.

Your FICO score is probably higher than his, can't you just enjoy life from your higher moral perch as established by credit-worthiness and rain ---- down on everyone below you?

Oh, right, that's what you're already doing.

So why aren't you happy, Eberly?

#129 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 11:19 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort