That bill would have cost more than $50 billion over the next decade. Typical Democrat tax and spend. Republicans want to do something about getting tuition lowered so students won't have to go in debt up to their eyeballs, but Democrats would rather keep the profits coming into the Liberal Education Machine and tax the people to cover the student loan debt.

Education ought to be non-profit OR free, but free is unlikely.

no im not crying thats just overpriced useless college education in my eye

The cost of education is a real problem, but this is not a productive solution.

All this will do is increase the cost of education and further encourage reckless spending by families with college students. It's perhaps the worst possible way of addressing the issue.

"That bill would have cost more than $50 billion over the next decade."

We spend far more than that on Republican-leaning projects (see: just about anything having to do with the military-industrial complex...given that I live in an area where Air Force manufacturing is king.)

We couldn't have spent it on people instead of military parts for a change? We couldn't have spent that money on helping students AND parents--again, you're killing two birds with one stone with this plan--rather than just spending it on an already-bloated military budget?

"Republicans want to do something about getting tuition lowered so students won't have to go in debt up to their eyeballs"

What?

That's an honest question, Draug...the Party of No doesn't say no to everything, obviously, they have their ideas--but I rarely if ever hear a Republican Congressman speak to education/student concerns (unless, of course, it's election time--in which case, shiny new red apples for everyone! ...The Dems do that too, to be fair, but to be equally-fair, I at least hear them talking about education in NON-election years, too.)

So...what's Mitch McConnell want to do? Not a vague answer...

If he's against this plan, what is his direct, tangible, concrete counter-proposal, and why should I view it as being better than this one?

"but Democrats would rather keep the profits coming into the Liberal Education Machine and tax the people to cover the student loan debt."

^And therein lies the problem I have with the GOP...well, one of dozens, but still.

Education is part of "the liberal agenda"...
The Media is part of "the liberal agenda"...unless it's FOX News, of course, which can simultaneously claim to be the biggest media outlet and still bash the media...
Intellectuals are part of "the liberal agenda"...
Broadway, Hollywood, and other centers of culture are all part of "the liberal agenda"...

Are you and fellow conservatives just TRYING to convince me that everything having to do with, well, "smart people" automatically equals Democrat, and everything anti-intellectual is Republican?

Because if so...shit, I'll vote Democrat for life then, Draug!

Sorry, I'd rather vote for rather than against the liberals if we're equating them with everything relating to intellectual and educated (what college is about?)

What's more...

May I ask why you object to being taxed for the Liberal Education Machine but not the Conservative Military Industrial Complex?

We've got a pretty--what's the technical term?--insanely bigass military already, Draug...

But we're LAGGING behind at least a dozen other nations in STEM and Humanities testing on a regular basis, and that trend continues into the workforce...

Maybe some of those billions going to building the umpteenth new part for the umpteenth new plane can go towards educating our children and assuaging the mountain of debt that's crushing us all?

Which is why the Republicans filibustered it.

Instead of using taxpayer money to subsidize the overpriced cost of Private College tuitions, most of which have very questionable ROIs, that money should be given to the States to fund their State Schools with the condition that tuition will be lowered.

Obi you literally just wrote a lengthy post describing exactly why it was filibustered...

"All this will do is increase the cost of education and further encourage reckless spending by families with college students. It's perhaps the worst possible way of addressing the issue."

1. What do you define as reckless spending, to be clear, before I address that?

2. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it IS at least an attempt...

"Obi, would you rather a shitty solution rather than none at all?"

Yes--at least we could try and amend a shitty solution or build off it...

Or do anything but filibuster...which between this and the Government Shutdown is what Ted Cruz seems best at, screaming and trying to run out the clock until he gets his way like an infant at the supermarket.

At least a bad solution allows for, you know, responsible adults to fix it with amendments.

No solution is...well, no solution at all.

@obi

Spending $65k+ a year on a BS/BA degree just so you can feel superior for having gone to a private college. There are perhaps a half dozen schools worth paying that much for as an undergrad and they aren't the ones most people are paying for.

Abg, are you saying the bill is not a productive solution, or the filibustering of it?

The real problem is the higher education system itself, and letting university's continue to charge such outrageous prices for an embossed piece of paper is hardly going to help.

@Warden

The bill is stupid. It doesn't address the problem and probably will make it worse. It is a waste of money and will prevent further (and better) potential solutions from being discussed. It should be killed.

"The real problem is the higher education system itself, and letting university's continue to charge such outrageous prices for an embossed piece of paper is hardly going to help.

Agreed 100%.

I'm all for reducing military spending but that doesn't mean I'm for forcing families to continue to spend tens of thousands of dollars for an in-state tuition. Tuition increases have outpaced inflation by a significant amount and inflation has outpaced pay increase by a significant amount. Student loans and putting the debt on the future earnings are just putting the students into indentured servitude. Continuing education needs an overhaul.

Seriously. When my father went to college, tuition for all 4 years was roughly 50% of his starting salary (probably less). The same school for me would have been over 200% of my starting salary and, having not been able to afford to get my MS, I probably wouldn't have even gotten as good of a job. It's ridiculous.

I'm not against addressing tuition AS WELL...

Why is this mutually-exclusive? Very rare to have a silver bullet bill...or, given our Author Tournament and Tolkien conversation, One Education Bill to Fix it All...

This one would've helped some in some capacity, via "a minimum tax of 30 percent on Americans earning between $1 and $2 million each year." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-republicans-block-consideration-of-student-loan-bill/

I'm fine with that.

Senator Alexander of Tennessee said:

"College graduates don't need a dollar a day tax subsidy to pay off their loan. They need a job...and they're experiencing right now the worst situation for finding a job that they've seen in a long, long time," Alexander said."

As a near-graduate (and then someone hoping to somehow afford grad school) I'd like to say to the Senator and those here taking that stance--

1. I don't see the GOP HELPING that job market, and

2. Help CAN come from more than one place...simply telling me to get (another) job isn't going to solve my debt, because shockingly, trying to move, have a relationship, maintain things like a car and apartment AND pay off college is rather impossible with starter-level jobs...

Not exactly helped by the fact the GOP doesn't want to raise the minimum wage to help those student workers pay for more things, either.

Sometimes no solution is *better* than a bad solution. Putting gasoline in your kerosene heater when you are out of kerosene, for instance. Sticking a nail in where a fuse used to be. Using duct tape on electric wiring.

Sorry but I believe in "better the devil I know than one I don't."

"It is a waste of money and will prevent further (and better) potential solutions from being discussed. It should be killed."

I would again like to ask why we seem to be acting as if there can be only one bill for student aid relief or educational reform or anything pertinent to this debt issue...

Gays have recently won more and more rights, piece by piece, with different court rulings and bills (unless you live in Texas, where "reparative therapy" is apparently kosher, because hey, why accept someone for who they are when you can Room 101 them into straightness, but I digress)--

Why can't we take the same approach with this issue?

Why can't we have this issue tackling (in whatever capacity, even if it's a small one) some aspect of the debt issue, and then add to that with future bills, and if we decide at some point that this idea isn't working, can can change it then?

Unless the rules have changed, you don't start paying back student loans fight away anyhow. I had 5 years from graduation before my first monthly bill came do. So I doubt you are dealing with paying back your student loans yet, obi. And if you can't afford grad school, don't fucking go.

Here's an idea, instead of raising minimum wage, inplement a new level: minimum wage for a job where you require your employee to have a university degree, and a separate minimum wage for jobs where you are not required to have a degree. And get rid of the bullshit "recommended requirements" employers have for things that should take no more than a week's training to learn how to do.

Of course, even if this idea seemed feasible, it's implementation would prove a problem, as people from both sides of the aisle could find reasons to hate it. But I'm just brainstorming, and to me, at least, this seems a hell of a lot better than raising the minimum wage wholesale.

We can't because once they get their way, the Democrats won't return to the table to discuss reducing the actual *cost* of an education. Tax the rich and five it to the schools under the agreement they cut in state tuition by 20% a year for 3 years.

@obi

I have given 2 very clear examples of how this bill will make the current situation *worse*. Would you care to rebut those points or are you going to continually repeat the same questions?

@Warden - who decides what jobs cam be trained for in a few weeks? Give me a couple examples you think can be trained in even a couple.of months.

@Warden

How would that address the cost of higher education?

He never rebuts points, abge. He just sticks his fingers in his ears and keeps shouting the same thing over and over like the little kid he accuses the Republicans of being.

"Sometimes no solution is *better* than a bad solution. Putting gasoline in your kerosene heater when you are out of kerosene, for instance. Sticking a nail in where a fuse used to be. Using duct tape on electric wiring."

Well, the first one I can't speak to, not having ever seen a kerosene heater, but I get the gist...

As to the duct tape/wiring analogy, yes, that's a problem, but a problem because that's a temporary solution to a permanent problem with NO follow-up.

I'm suggesting follow-ups.

And if you're suggesting the cord is too frayed--as it were--to be repaired in any way, shape or form, and that we need a new wire/way of paying for college...

Well, that's NOT what the Republicans are proposing, they're proposing just what Senator Alexander said, putting the weight essentially back on students, which is unfeasible given the nature of the economy he complains about and likewise is neither new nor innovative...

"Individual fiscal responsibility" is all well and good, until something becomes a NATIONAL problem.

Student debt is a national problem, and it requires a national solution, not a Senator chastising me for being unable to pay things off with my cheap job when raising wages for said cheap jobs is ALSO something said Senator and his GOP pals are against.

The cost of higher education is a serious problem. It is made more serious by the fact that people are idiots. Pay $60k a year for a degree that has an average starting salary of $30k and you're surprised when you're crippled by debt? Take some responsibility for your stupid mistakes and don't make me pay for it because I had the sense to go to a school my family and I could afford.

Obi, duct tape conducts electricity and can cause a serious fire, burning up your car or house. All three of my examples can result in fiery death and destruction. Please don't ever use duct tape on electrical wires.

"Unless the rules have changed, you don't start paying back student loans fight away anyhow. I had 5 years from graduation before my first monthly bill came do. So I doubt you are dealing with paying back your student loans yet, obi. And if you can't afford grad school, don't fucking go."

1. Since I'm going to be a teacher/professor, I NEED to go to grad school, Draug...at least out here, you need a Master's minimum to even teach at a community college...and even if that weren't the case, I'd like to make slightly more than the bottom of the barrel, for which I require a Master's degree. What's more, I don't think education and training future teachers should be the kind of thing that we just don't do if it's "too expensive." I already took the cheapest of all possible paths I could have and went to a community college for my AA/most of my GED, and a state school for my BA, and will stay at said state school for my MA. It's not like I'm going to Stanford here and being shocked at the cost.

2. I don't have to pay off anything yet, but I know folks who do who are struggling, and all of us are struggling to move out--again, something that impacts students and parents, as you're a parent, and while I hope you had a Happy Father's Day, I'm likewise sure that once they're 20-something you'd like your kids out of the house--because of the dilemma student debt raises--

Do you move out, and risk having to move back if you can't pay for gas, car, apartment, food, AND student debt when that extra brick falls (as already it's hard to afford apartments out here for students, it IS Southern California, one of the highest rent areas in the country) or do you just stay at home until the debt passes or you get a full-time job after grad school?

Neither option sounds very good, yes?