Quote:Remember, this would be funded by businesses that are making an investment.  A person in college that has a good record of grades could entice a company to put forth money to train (educate) him or her.  Where investment firms would enter the picture would be more-or-less "betting" that this person will graduate with a certain degree and eventually earn the "normal" income that a person with such a degree would earn.  The investment firms would provide the capital (cash).

 

My argument is that putting the burden of risk on private business will "weed out" the people in college that aren't "up to the task" of actually earning a degree and being productive afterwards.

 

My problem with providing funding through government is that it will always grow un-justified, and the people that have an interest in the student don't pay for it, we all do.  We all pay for that person that wants a degree in puppeteering as well as the engineering student.  That puts the burden and the risk on "we the people" rather than putting the burden on those that will utilize the skills and knowledge that said student would learn.

 

Look at it this way, is it better for an engineering firm to pay more taxes, or is it better for them to pay for future talent?  Is it better for a private (for profit) hospital to pay for someone's education to become a doctor, or should we all pay for it through taxes?  Should our tax dollars fund someone that wants to get a degree in puppeteering, or should that perhaps come from a movie studio?

 

Finally, Bernie Sanders has probably not said much regarding K-12 education, so let's look at another "sub-topic" regarding education.  Let's focus on community colleges and trade programs.  What does he propose as far as doing something about that?

That's the crux of a lot bipartisan politics though isn't it? You focus on the downsides of the government doing it and I focus on the downsides of the free market. 

 

I see many possible problems with the free market doing this without regulation, which I assume is what we are discussing here. 

1. without tax breaks or some benefit I don't see them actually taking a risk and any reasonable number of students as to really dent the problem with college for kids as whole for the country.

 

2. Eventually like with all investment firms they will want more money. That means either charging more on the back end to ensure they get more than they invested to the point of breaking kids out of school (basically the current loan system for a lot of grads) or, becoming creative in how they write up their contracts, adding in default clauses or other such things. I see them just becoming another version of a loan system.

 

3. At worst they would require contract term employment at a firm they are invested in on top of the other things. Not even allowing a person to leave or the loan becomes due. 

 

As for your second part, Sanders program would effect community college. He, like myself is a huge proponent of community college. Most trade schools are private are they not? Those, I would think, would be the most likely to benefit from a free market solution as proposed by Rubio. 

---