Quote: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.