She doesn’t say that explicitly, but her support for Sanders, who basically wants free college for all (regardless of the subject matter studied, presumably), more than implies that.
This is a tweet from Hollywood actress Shailene Woodley who videoed this woman saying she’s voting for Bernie Sanders because she has student debt.
$226,000 of student debt to be exact, and all she wants to do is help people “communicate effectively.”
— Shailene Woodley (@shailenewoodley) April 16, 2016
Setting aside the customary sense of entitlement that comes with supporting someone because you think they’ll erase your student debt, there’s SO much wrong with this:
1. A degree in speech pathology cost her $226K? Were her text books made of solid gold?
2. Your intentions to help people are not an adequate enough reason to expect your debt should be forgiven or erased.
3. The alternative to debt forgiveness is to expect the education to be free in the first place. The only thing that gets in the way of free education (other than Republicans with common sense) is the fact that you’re more likely to find a unicorn before you’ll find free education. It has never been free. Ever. Which leads to the biggest thing wrong with this woman’s “Berned” out worldview…
4. Just because YOU don’t have to look at the bill doesn’t mean it costs nothing. If you think education is expensive now, just wait until it’s “free.”
When you subsidize something you produce more of it. So subsidizing college will produce more students than they will be able to budget for. Which sounds great until you consider the fact that college dropout rates are high enough as it is.
Imagine what dropout rates will become when students who are even LESS serious than the ones who drop out enroll. Imagine the costs to education when that happens. It will skyrocket, and the only way to address that problem is to tax more or ration education, which defeats the goal of providing access to it.
Then, if you really want to get into the weeds, you could get into a discussion of the actual value of a college education today and what they would become when more people than ever have degrees. Anyone who has ever been acquainted with supply and demand curves would understand what will happen to a marketplace that is flooded with a supply of college degrees when the demand from employers for college educated applicants remains unchanged.
Then what do you think will happen when the government starts to figure out that it’s paying for too many (gold plated, apparently) speech pathologists? Or when it figures out that if it just pays for people to do whatever they want there will eventually be a reckoning that it can only afford to pay for the education of people who are most likely to be employed upon graduation?
Like with healthcare you will begin to see one of three things:
A. The rationing of “free” education.
B. People being forced to once again pay for their education if they want something outside of the scope of what the government will be willing to fund.
C. A and B
It’s most likely going to be C. The more ideologies like socialism try to erase the disparities of privilege and wealth the deeper they make the divide.
This isn’t a difficult pitfall to avoid, all you need is common sense. Therein lies our problem with Bernie supporters.