Mike Rowe vs Bernie Sanders over college

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mike-Rowe-Bernie-Sanders-college-tweet-knucklehead-6702291.php


At the end of the day, providing a path to go to college is a helluva lot cheaper than putting people on a path to jail.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 13, 2015




I wonder sometimes, if the best way to question the increasingly dangerous idea that a college education is the best path for the most people, is to stop fighting the sentiment directly, and simply shine a light on the knuckleheads who continue to perpetuate this nonsense.



As founder of mikeroweWORKS Foundation, Rowe has sought to help those looking to pursue a career in the skilled trades by offering scholarships. In his Facebook post, Rowe went further in his criticism by saying that those championing "college for all" are trying to scare people into going to college — by suggesting that the only other option is jail.


:box:

I'm with Mike Rowe.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Mike Rowe's facebook said:
Off The Wall

Bernie Sanders tweets, “At the end of the day, providing a path to go to college is a helluva lot cheaper than putting people on a path to jail.”

I wonder sometimes, if the best way to question the increasingly dangerous idea that a college education is the best path for the most people, is to stop fighting the sentiment directly, and simply shine a light on the knuckleheads who continue to perpetuate this nonsense. This latest tweet from Bernie Sanders is a prime example. In less than 140 characters, he’s managed to imply that a path to prison is the most likely alternative to a path to college. Pardon my acronym, but...WTF!?

Historically, universities have promoted themselves at the expense of many other forms of “alternative education.” The implicit suggestion, reinforced daily by a generation of well-intended guidance counselors and misguided parents, is always the same - get yourself a four-year degree, or accept one of the many “vocational consolation prizes” that result from all other forms of “lesser knowledge.”

It’s a cautionary tale as predictable as it is false. But now, as people are slowly starting to understand the obscenity of 1.3 trillion dollars in student loans, along with the abundance of opportunity for those with the proper training, it seems the proponents of “college for all” need something even more frightening than the prospect of a career in the trades to frighten the next class into signing on the dotted line. According to Senator Sanders, that “something,” is a path to jail.

I try not to be political on this page, because the truth is, arrogance and elitism are alive and well in every corner of every party - especially with respect to this topic. But I have to admit, this is the first time I’ve seen an elected official support the hyper-inflated cost of a diploma by juxtaposing it with the hyper-inflated cost of incarceration. Honestly, I’m not sure what to make of it.

Is it possible that Senator Sanders doesn’t realize the number of college graduates with criminal records? Is he unaware of the millions of successful tradespeople and entrepreneurs who didn’t pay for a sheepskin, but somehow managed to stay of the clink? Does he not recognize that comments like his will encourage more kids who are better suited for an alternative path to borrow vast sums of money they’ll never be able to pay back in order to pay for a degree that won’t get them a job?

Maybe not. Maybe the 140 character limit has doomed him to be misunderstood or taken out of context. Certainly, it’s happened to me. But regardless, the damage is in the headline, and Twitter is nothing but headlines. The truth, in my opinion, is this: There is no alternative for an education, and no hope for a person who doesn’t want to learn something useful and apply it. But there are many, many alternatives to college. And none of them come with a prison sentence.

Anyway, I’m in no position to judge. After all, I’m going LIVE on Facebook at 5pm PT to raise money for Work Ethic Scholarships by singing The Grinch and selling a collectible Bobblehead. http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll…

So really, what do I know?

Mike
 

The Berean

Well-known member
I do not agree with the view that we should tell young people that a four year degree is the ONLY way to get ahead. That's dishonest IMO. As Mike Rowe says there are lots and lots of good work in manufacturing for people who like and are good at building things. Just a few careers to consider:

Machinist
Welder
Sheetmetal Fabricator
Composite Fabricator
Automotive technician
Aircraft technician

All these are skilled jobs that require a fair amount of education. And these jobs can lead to more lucrative careers as well.
 
Last edited:

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I do not agree with the view that we should tell young people that a four year degree is the ONLY way to get ahead. That's dishonest IMO. As Mike Rowe says there are lots and lots of good work in manufacturing for people who like and are good at building things. Just a few careers to consider:

Machinist
Welder
Sheetmetal Fabricator
Composite Fabricator
Automotive technician
Aircraft technician

All these are skilled jobs that require a fair amount of education. And these jobs can lead to more lucrative careers as well.

this is true
but
you have to promise free stuff
if
you want to get elected
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
We have free K thru 12 and there's a sidewalk that goes right up to the front door of every college I've ever seen.
But that's not what Bernie means when he says "put on a path" is it?
What a Liberal means when he says something like that is "pay for" or "make it free" ignoring that nothing is free, someone has to pay for it.
High school is free and only 81% complete that.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
The first two years should be free, and the next two years should be subsidized. Regardless of age, so that someone who starts out in the trades can look to a second career when they find that age interferes with the more physical jobs.
 

PureX

Well-known member
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mike-Rowe-Bernie-Sanders-college-tweet-knucklehead-6702291.php


At the end of the day, providing a path to go to college is a helluva lot cheaper than putting people on a path to jail.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 13, 2015




I wonder sometimes, if the best way to question the increasingly dangerous idea that a college education is the best path for the most people, is to stop fighting the sentiment directly, and simply shine a light on the knuckleheads who continue to perpetuate this nonsense.






:box:

I'm with Mike Rowe.
Well, if you think Bernie Sanders was proposing these two possibilities as irreconcilable opposites, I think you and Mike Rowe are idiots. Because I don't think that's what Bernie Sanders was saying, nor implying, and I don't think anyone with a lick of sense would make that assumption.

Bernie Sanders simply used the term "college" in place of the term "advanced education", but meaning, obviously, the latter. Which would include advanced training in the trades, which often costs people money that they don't have, and so must borrow or do without. Which is not good for society, nor good for the individual. But is only good for the bankers who saddle these people with debt just so they can find work, while they force others into poverty by denying them access to the training they need to find work capable of providing them a livable wage.

I'm really disappointed that you and Mike Rowe chose to focus on some imaginary political impasse where there was not one. And where one should not be one.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The first two years should be free, and the next two years should be subsidized. Regardless of age, so that someone who starts out in the trades can look to a second career when they find that age interferes with the more physical jobs.

Am I out of line in thinking that we should concentrate on getting people thru the already free 12th grade level before we embark on some other endeavor? And let's not discount that there are already programs for folks who don't got money like grants, scholarships and loans to go to college.

So, instead of the "throw more money at the issue" approach that some people take can we have a "what's wrong with the programs we're already funding?" approach?

Shouldn't we start with that?
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The first two years should be free, and the next two years should be subsidized. Regardless of age, so that someone who starts out in the trades can look to a second career when they find that age interferes with the more physical jobs.

more free stuff

with every election comes promises for more free stuff

who is going to pay for all this free stuff?

have you thought about that?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
more free stuff

with every election comes promises for more free stuff

who is going to pay for all this free stuff?

have you thought about that?

I'm receiving a state grant that partially pays for my schooling. It's a return on my own tax investment that should be available for everyone, because our society benefits from the education of its citizenry.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Am I out of line in thinking that we should concentrate on getting people thru the already free 12th grade level before we embark on some other endeavor?

I think we can do better at both.

And let's not discount that there are already programs for folks who don't got money like grants, scholarships and loans to go to college.

So, instead of the "throw more money at the issue" approach that some people take can we have a "what's wrong with the programs we're already funding?" approach?

Shouldn't we start with that?

Expanding the system of grants and subsidized loans would be a great place to start, and is essentially what I'm proposing.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I'm receiving a state grant that partially pays for my schooling. It's a return on my own tax investment that should be available for everyone, because our society benefits from the education of its citizenry.

so why doesn't the state reduce your taxes so you can pay for your schooling without asking for a grant?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
so why doesn't the state reduce your taxes so you can pay for your schooling without asking for a grant?

Because grants exist for those who couldn't pay for their schooling regardless of a reduction in their taxes. Education is a way of breaking out of the cycle of poverty. Maybe there should be a consumption tax that specifically funds education.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Because grants exist for those who couldn't pay for their schooling regardless of a reduction in their taxes. Education is a way of breaking out of the cycle of poverty. Maybe there should be a consumption tax that specifically funds education.

well you just dodged another question

who is going to pay for all this free stuff?
 

Selaphiel

Well-known member
what about the taxpayers who don't use the free stuff?

why should they pay for your free stuff?

Because society is a community, not just a whole bunch of disconnected individuals. Just because you do not use a service directly, does not mean that you do not benefit from it. It is good for society as a whole, which you do benefit indirectly from. A more educated society is a better society.

Also, they probably use "free stuff" that maybe those who take advantage of free education do not use. Why should I pay for roads if I do not drive? Why should I pay for any education for children if I don't have children? The answer is simple, a small contribution from everyone makes for a better society.

You are implicitly stating that the only thing that matters is you as an individual, which is to deny the reality of society and community altogether in favor of pure egotism. I live in a place with free higher education for everyone, we manage to pay for it, we also have healthcare for everyone. Last time I checked, we were doing quite well here.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I live in a place with free higher education for everyone, we manage to pay for it, we also have healthcare for everyone..

well we live in the country that is protecting you and the rest of the world from communism and islam
we are protecting freedom
something you may take for granted
many have died so you could take it for granted
the reason we can protect the free world
is
we have a strong economy that advances technology
we still have incentives to improve our lot
and
free stuff takes away those incentives
 

PureX

Well-known member
what about the taxpayers who don't use the free stuff?

why should they pay for your free stuff?
I think that if at your age you still don't know the answer to that question, then there is no one who will be able to explain it to you.

The answer is because they can. And because we are all in this society as partners. And because it may well be you who needs the help a year from now. But you're not going to understand this, because you don't see yourself as a member of a society of fellow humans. You don't understand that their well-being and your own are one and the same.
 
Top