DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Presidential Primaries IX

I will be traveling in another week so I won't be able to keep up on this thread for long.

Please, by all means, have at it Folks.

Will Bernie fade now?
How about Cruz?

I think both are pretty much out of the Delegate race now.
Will a miracle happen for either of them? Perhaps at the Conventions?

Time will tell...

it would actually be a blessing in disguise if both conventions were contested.

political revolution.

I agree.

I think it's over for Bernie short of an indictment of Hilary coming before the convention.

But I think Bernie and his followers will be a huge pain in the ass for whoever gets elected!

That wouldn't be a miracle, that would be a conspiracy.

Following Tuesday’s New York primary, Kasich mocked Cruz on Twitter, calling out the Texan’s inability to clinch 1,237 delegates before July’s convention “mathematically impossible” – a phrase Cruz himself has used in the past to call for Kasich to drop out of the race.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/...ml?intcmp=hpbt2

So why is Kasich still running?

Because he wants to.

What a waste of time.

and money

Not if it goes to a contested convention... he could be the nominee.

Not under the current rules but the rules committee meets before the convention... intrigue.

That is intriguing! Oh wait, a pig just flew by my window, I will get back to you.

Say hi to that pig for me!

i thought you didn't like chris christie?

+100 pts for Swish!

I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where the GOP establishment comes out on the other side. Both Cruz and Trump are major threats to their existence. Trump is too much of a wild card, and Cruz won't put up with a McConnel/Boehner style of running a legislature. (Yes, I know Boehner is out, but I'm not so sure his style of rolling over so the Dems will rub his bell is. I can't stand McConnel)

If they rig it so anyone but Trump or Cruz gets it, we'll see the lowest GOP turn out in history. Mark my words. The majority of Republicans in this country are done with a party that doesn't represent them. The GOP thinks the people are bluffing, but I think they've stocked up on enough rice, beans, and ammo that they're prepared to let Hillary trash the country if it means the GOP will finally be destroyed and a new Party formed.

i agree with that, the problem is that it's a lose/lose situation for conservatives regardless.

for example, most people who want to vote for bernie will end up voting for Hilary. that's just the reality. the media is trying the drum up some divide, but the liberals are still gonna make sure to not vote for anybody on the right.

but you guys on the right. man there's a lot of hatred between the trump/cruz camp. if one group wins, the other aren't gonna show up to vote, and vise versa.

hell, you got posters right here talking about they just gonna stay home and chill if Trump is the nominee. some said they gonna chill if Cruz is the nominee.

the major network doesn't like EITHER of em. neither does the RNC.

and thats not even mentioning whatever the hell is going on in congress, like you were talking about.

it's not looking good for you guys.

I think Hillary is going to suffer some of the same. The DNC and establishment are pushing her down our throats and we're supposed to fall in line. I was an independent when this all started, I still am, so there is no fall in line for me or many like me.

I would never vote for Cruz or Trump, but I feel the same about Hillary now... so what do you do? Feel disenfranchised like it doesn't matter and stay home in November.

i feel you, but the reality is that it's gonna happen less on our side and more on theirs.

That is how I feel as well, at least you had someone you could get behind that had a chance though. I dislike them all.

Really about the only scenario that will change my mind at this point is Bernie on the ticket. I'd vote for him as VP if I can't have him as President, but I don't see that happening either.

Warren is about the only other suitable candidate for Bernie backers and I'm not sure Hillary will do that either. So I think things will be tighter than most expect. Trump might be able to win as a third party candidate.

This years election is PRIME for a third party.

i disagree bro.

the only way trump could win as a third party is if bernie runs as an independent as well.

Trump running as a third party only splits the republican votes. its not gonna split the democratic votes. hilary will still get the votes regardless of trump runs as a third party or not.

the only way hilary doesn't get the liberal vote is is bernie runs as well.

so, i didn't know where to put this, but i gotta do this capstone paper on the cost of tuition in this country.

i found this interesting while doing the research.

so the average cost of a public 4 year school is 9,139 a year right? which equals to 36,556 for 4 years

so lets say every last student needed room and board, the national average is 18,943 a year, which equals to $75,772 for 4 years.

man, thats a lot.

nevermind the iraq war in it's entirety, but JUST the iraqi reconstruction project by itself cost 212 billion, which was completely wasted through fraud and such.

212 billion.

so, if we would've used that on our citizens, we could've funded 5,779,321 people through a 4 year degree.

2,797,867 people if they need room and board.

just with that joke of a project.

oh and by the way, im doing some of the numbers. you guys pushing that "back in my day, i worked doing school" were clearly not telling the board the whole story, and i'm going to start calling out some of you about it.

Because he is a bloviating, pompous, monkey crap eating, waste of flesh.

So I worked my way through school, but I had a very well paying summer job doing road construction. Durning the school year I did odd jobs for a professor (landscaping, painting, general stuff around his house) and worked in the school cafeteria bussing tables. My parents had saved a little up for me as well in a mutual fund as well. So what would I not be telling?

That said, if I didn't go full time I could have easily paid for it myself. My dad took over 7 years to complete his 4 year degree because he worked full time while doing it. Not the best case scenario, but doable.

The cost of education has spun out of control, I won't disagree with that. Going to community college for a few years is a great option, though missing out on the 4 year "college experience" would kind of stink. It is a tough situation for sure.

Swish school is much more expensive than it used to be. In 1985-86 San Diego Community College had night classes for around $50 a semester per class. Bernie wants to get the cost back to today's equivalent of that or make tuition free.

Community College used to be really cheap.

Community college is still pretty cheap IMO. I helped my ex-girlfriend with some of her tuition at Virgina Western Community College - she took 2 classes per semester and it was about $900 if I recall correctly. Not cheap, but certainly affordable.

Come on GM, tell us what you really think of the guy!

OCD and columbus:

exactly right. you guys-dunno if yall remember- but throughout these threads in the past, you guys have hinted at inflation and such throughout the years that are screwing us over.

right now, one disturbing thing i've noticed is that the purchasing power of the dollar itself hasn't changed in a while. there's a lot of credible sources making the argument that it's actually gotten worse.

here's another issue:

in 2003, the national total of student loan debt was 253 billion.

now it's 1.2 trillion as of 2013. that's a 300% increase in just a 10 year period.

also, taking into account purchasing power with the cost of tuition only going back to the 80's, it is ridiculous how cheap college was compared to now.

students COULD work their way through college, cause the freaking pell grant paid for damn near half of it, in some causes most of it, so some students didn't need to get loans because a 20 hour a week job would've been more than enough to handle that.

that's impossible today.

and we are just talking about state schools. private schools i don't touch, only public schools. private schools make it known what theyre about.

so yea man, this stuff is getting out of control.

the conservative figure is that we spent 1.2 trill in iraq.

about a trillion on this massive failure of the f-35 program.

yet we can't atleast ease the burden of these tuition rates? come on. the money is there. we find the money to go to war and pay these foreign countries all the damn time. why can't we take care of our own people?

Instead of looking to give handouts, look into WHY tuition costs have exploded over the last decade. There you will find the root cause of the problem and a possible fix.

once again, i'm not looking for handouts.

i'm simply stating that we can fix this problem if we wanted to. at the very least, we can stop the cost of tuition from rising even further.

if you consider that a handout, then honestly you and i won't come to any sort of middle ground.

You keep calling for the tax payers to dole out money for college tuition like they do for war. Stop spending my money and find the root cause of the problem, then fix it.

stop spending my money on wars.

we can go at this all day if you want to act childish.

10 Universities With the Largest Endowments ending fiscal year 2014 (dollars in billions)

Link

School name (state) - End of fiscal year 2014 endowment - U.S. News rank and category

• Harvard University (MA) $36,429,256,000 2, National Universities

• Yale University (CT) $23,858,561,000 3, National Universities

• Stanford University (CA) $21,466,006,000 4 (tie), National Universities

• Princton University (NJ) $20,576,361,000 1, National Universities

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology $12,425,131,000 7, National Universities

• Texas A&M University—College Station $10,521,034,492 70 (tie), National Universities

• University of Michigan—Ann Arbor $9,603,919,000 29, National Universities

• University of Pennsylvania $9,582,335,000 9, National Universities

• Columbia University (NY) $9,223,047,000 4 (tie), National Universities

• University of Notre Dame (IN) $8,189,096,000 18 (tie), National Universities

10 University's, some public, 117 billion dollars on hand in just endowments. Does Bernie know about this?

The Real Reason College Tuition Costs So Much

BOULDER, Colo. — ONCE upon a time in America, baby boomers paid for college with the money they made from their summer jobs. Then, over the course of the next few decades, public funding for higher education was slashed. These radical cuts forced universities to raise tuition year after year, which in turn forced the millennial generation to take on crushing educational debt loads, and everyone lived unhappily ever after.

This is the story college administrators like to tell when they’re asked to explain why, over the past 35 years, college tuition at public universities has nearly quadrupled, to $9,139 in 2014 dollars. It is a fairy tale in the worst sense, in that it is not merely false, but rather almost the inverse of the truth.

The conventional wisdom was reflected in a recent National Public Radio series on the cost of college. “So it’s not that colleges are spending more money to educate students,” Sandy Baum of the Urban Institute told NPR. “It’s that they have to get that money from someplace to replace their lost state funding — and that’s from tuition and fees from students and families.”

In fact, public investment in higher education in America is vastly larger today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was during the supposed golden age of public funding in the 1960s. Such spending has increased at a much faster rate than government spending in general. For example, the military’s budget is about 1.8 times higher today than it was in 1960, while legislative appropriations to higher education are more than 10 times higher.

In other words, far from being caused by funding cuts, the astonishing rise in college tuition correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education. If over the past three decades car prices had gone up as fast as tuition, the average new car would cost more than $80,000.

Some of this increased spending in education has been driven by a sharp rise in the percentage of Americans who go to college. While the college-age population has not increased since the tail end of the baby boom, the percentage of the population enrolled in college has risen significantly, especially in the last 20 years. Enrollment in undergraduate, graduate and professional programs has increased by almost 50 percent since 1995. As a consequence, while state legislative appropriations for higher education have risen much faster than inflation, total state appropriations per student are somewhat lower than they were at their peak in 1990. (Appropriations per student are much higher now than they were in the 1960s and 1970s, when tuition was a small fraction of what it is today.)

As the baby boomers reached college age, state appropriations to higher education skyrocketed, increasing more than fourfold in today’s dollars, from $11.1 billion in 1960 to $48.2 billion in 1975. By 1980, state funding for higher education had increased a mind-boggling 390 percent in real terms over the previous 20 years. This tsunami of public money did not reduce tuition: quite the contrary.

For example, when I was an undergraduate at the University of Michigan in 1980, my parents were paying more than double the resident tuition that undergraduates had been charged in 1960, again in inflation-adjusted terms. And of course tuition has kept rising far faster than inflation in the years since: Resident tuition at Michigan this year is, in today’s dollars, nearly four times higher than it was in 1980.

State appropriations reached a record inflation-adjusted high of $86.6 billion in 2009. They declined as a consequence of the Great Recession, but have since risen to $81 billion. And these totals do not include the enormous expansion of the federal Pell Grant program, which has grown, in today’s dollars, to $34.3 billion per year from $10.3 billion in 2000.

It is disingenuous to call a large increase in public spending a “cut,” as some university administrators do, because a huge programmatic expansion features somewhat lower per capita subsidies. Suppose that since 1990 the government had doubled the number of military bases, while spending slightly less per base. A claim that funding for military bases was down, even though in fact such funding had nearly doubled, would properly be met with derision.

Interestingly, increased spending has not been going into the pockets of the typical professor. Salaries of full-time faculty members are, on average, barely higher than they were in 1970. Moreover, while 45 years ago 78 percent of college and university professors were full time, today half of postsecondary faculty members are lower-paid part-time employees, meaning that the average salaries of the people who do the teaching in American higher education are actually quite a bit lower than they were in 1970.

By contrast, a major factor driving increasing costs is the constant expansion of university administration. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions.

Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase.

The rapid increase in college enrollment can be defended by intellectually respectable arguments. Even the explosion in administrative personnel is, at least in theory, defensible. On the other hand, there are no valid arguments to support the recent trend toward seven-figure salaries for high-ranking university administrators, unless one considers evidence-free assertions about “the market” to be intellectually rigorous.

What cannot be defended, however, is the claim that tuition has risen because public funding for higher education has been cut. Despite its ubiquity, this claim flies directly in the face of the facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html

That's EASY! GOP Voodoo economics.

Wages have not kept up with cost because all the profits are going to the top and NOTHING trickles down. Then that is exacerbated by growing population and demand.

Swish you have been sold down the river, don't expect any part of the american dream in your lifetime.

Yep, too many people go to school... that's why it's so expensive. They should be welders. SMH

It's not JUST COLLEGE that has sky rocketed or I might believe some of the drivel 40 is posting; everything is getting out of hand! Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical Care, Medicine, Electric, Water, Gas, Transportation, Education, etc. etc. etc.

BUT HEY! You can still eat off the dollar menu and drink cheap Bush Beer! Murica!

I completely understand that you guys think spending other people's money solves everything but you are wrong. Other people would like the chance to spend their own money.