February 16, 2008

Obama Says Community Colleges Key to Economy

Sen. Barack Obama made two campus visits on Saturday as he campaigned in Wisconsin.

In the morning, the Illinois Democrat and presidential candidate spoke to a small group of students and administrators at Northcentral Technical College in Wausau.

“The economy is changing at a breathtaking pace, and we need different skills these days,” Mr. Obama said, according to the Wausau Daily Herald. “In a moment when people are finding it harder and harder to get ahead, it’s time to call upon our community colleges once again.”

Later in the day, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, he spoke to about 3,500 people at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire, where he talked about his plan to give college students $4,000 tuition credits. He has previously said that the credit would make community college “completely free” for most Americans.

The Wisconsin primary is on Tuesday. —Scott Smallwood

Comments

1. I think if the Senator could accomplish this (both making community college free and at least a $4,000 tuition credit) he would move the nation positivity forward in a serious way. The vast majority of Community colleges are doing a good job and provide access to a broad range of the population. If Mr. Obama could make them more open and successful that would be of great value to our society. Four-year institutions could then directly benefit from having a larger pool of more motivated sucessful students to whom they could offer completion progams and assuming continued success and eventually graduate programs. The two-year and four year providers could be better coordinated in such an approach. Not all community college students do or should move on to four-year colleges and universities. Moreover, there will likely always be students who come directly to four-year institutions for their entire degree. Completion rates from community colleges to four-year institutions are not equal to completion rates at the former. However if we could push broader access to community colleges, and completion of degrees there, I posit, albeit maybe too optimistically, that there would be a net gain in the number of qualified and motivated students for four-year institutions. From my perspective as an academic leader of a four-year institution I would rather have a community college student who is proven in higher education than a student who has not yet shown the motivation and ability for college-level work (We accept them mind you . . . but if I had a choice, I would select the proven student). Most of us live and work at good solid institutions that truly serve our communities and regions rather than at elite colleges & universities and I would wager that we would all benefit and welcome more community college graduates in our communities if there were more to be had.

   — Jeff Senese    Feb 17, 01:03 PM    #

2. Here’s my economic platform: I will ensure that every home in America has flouride-free, spin-coherent, monolithic-strand copper wiring for all computer and entertainment systems. It’s a labor-intensive technology that costs $100/ft., but I’ve heard it’s essential in the 21st Century. A national investment will relieve pressure on the increasingly burdened and belittled Middle Class, which they say is struggling to buy this kind of wiring, create jobs in the wiring industry, and — since those good folks spend money on food, smokes, and beer — favorably impact, you know, the entire economy.

   My esteemed opponent, Sen. McCain, has asked: “Whom will we take the money from to pay for all this? Certainly not Mr. Obama’s supporters.”

   You got that right! As a recent Wall St. Journal op-ed noted, the top 1% of income earners are paying only 39.38% of all federal income taxes. Yes, that’s up from 17.58% in 1981, but there’s plenty of headroom — 60.62% — for further tax expansion. Sen. McCain also says: “I’m no economist, but there have to be less-expensive, more-efficient ways to stimulate the economy and help the Middle Class. How do we know that the wiring industry needs billions in government assistance and, if we must engage in this kind of welfare, will use the money more effectively than other potential targets?”

   Well, I respect my colleague for whatever it was that he did for the country, but really, John. You’re starting to sound like a conservative!

   — S. Britchky    Feb 17, 03:34 PM    #

3. “-the top 1% of income earners are paying only 39.38% of all federal income taxes. Yes, that’s up from 17.58% in 1981.”

   It is really not fair (or informative) to make this statement without also discussing how much their share of income has risen in that same period of time.

   — Bill    Feb 18, 06:07 AM    #

4. Isn’t it amazing how statistics can be used to mask as well as illuminate? Stop and think how incredible the rise in wealth must be to create such a tax growth amid vast tax CUTS for those same mega-wealthy.

   That aside, the core issue here is educational access for a middle class strained to the breaking point and an underclass nearly bereft of hope and possibilities.

   Community colleges are and will be the solution for many of our nation’s problems. Lighter bureaucracy, rapid response and in many cases, constant and key communication channels with local business and industry make them results-oriented. And, in most cases community colleges are vastly under-funded in relation to their university partners.

   — Steve in the Midwest    Feb 18, 07:20 AM    #

5. Bill #3 has just exposed the feeble thought process that is so rampant with the victimhood-cultivating debt accumulators. People don’t get a “share of income” as if there are certain stores up for grabs from which the lucky or evil take a disproportionate ration. Income is produced by intelligent, hard working, and clever people. “Their” income should not be subjected to the appetites of jealous, weak links like Bill who would gang up on them to take “their” money. not his, and spend it on the education of adult members of the population who ought to be buying their own diplomas. I attended a community college for one semester years ago and was shocked at the how ill- prepard and lazy the student body was for anything other than asking for a handout,, diploma included. This new debt increase scheme is another really dumb idea by Barack Hussein Obama

   — Paula    Feb 18, 08:45 AM    #

6. According to the College Board, community college is close to free already in this country, after considering Pell Grants.

   It’s not the tuition and fees that are the problem—it’s paying for living expenses.

   Obama’s proposal is a lot of hype.

   — Loyal D    Feb 18, 10:10 AM    #

7. Paula #5 has undermined her argument by resorting to semantic issues and name calling. Ignoring that, let’s examine the rest of what she had to say.

   Paula: People don’t get a “share of income” as if there are certain stores up for grabs from which the lucky or evil take a disproportionate ration.
   My response: A classic Lockean fallacy. Assuming a limitless supply of money, you are correct. However, this is not the case. There is a finite limit to the amount of money, assuming that inflation is at least somewhat held in check. Thus if the top 1% greatly increase their income, that money has to come from somewhere. Some of it comes from the government in the form of tax cuts, but much of it comes off the backs of the consumer base of our society in the form of rising prices.

   Paula: Income is produced by intelligent, hard working, and clever people.
   My response: It is also produced by lying, scheming, immoral (or amoral) people. The Calvinist idea that prosperity is a sign of God’s blessing has led to money becoming more important than people in our culture (or at least a significant portion of it), and that has led to a domineering wealthy elite that gets richer off of the backs of the less fortunate guilt-free becaue it;s ‘just business’. As an example, consider the person pumping gas for 60+ hours a week just to feed his family, while there are major shareholders who purchased their shares with inherited money, who make money off of his labor without putting in an ounce of labor of their own. They do not have to be intelligent, hard working, or clever. They just needed to have the right parents. Now, they could sacrife a portion of their earnings to increase the wages of the guy pumping gas, but instead they prefer to keep him economically oppressed for the sake of their own wallet.

   Paula: “Their” income should not be subjected to the appetites of jealous, weak links like Bill who would gang up on them to take “their” money. not his, and spend it on the education of adult members of the population who ought to be buying their own diplomas.
   My response: First, Paula just indicated that she believes diploma’s are bought not earned. I seriously hope that this is not a reflection of her educational experience. Second, how is then is someone who can barely feed his family with his minimum-wage job supposed to afford to pay for even a small portion of their tuition?

   — Dan    Feb 18, 10:25 AM    #

8. Dan says, “There is a finite limit to the amount of money…” ARE YOU RETARDED? What do you think the sale of Treasury Bonds and other debt instruments creates? Answer = M1, M2 etc. Let me just say this. Left wing crybabies address wealth and income from the exact same intellectual perspective as the ancients addressed thunder. They don’t understand it so they either glorify or vilify it. Thank you Dan, thanks a million, for exposing the root of the left wing problem, to wit: you/they have no idea how the world works monetarily, which is one reason why many of them, especially those in the professorship of America, are broke and deeply in debt and want the government to solve their problems. It doesn’t have anything to do with who the parents are except for that .01% of the pop who do seem to flaunt their daddy’s money. Otherwise, like “the person pumping gas for 60+ hours a week” we all make choices. The ones he didn’t make, God made for him. Get over it. Paula

   — paula    Feb 18, 11:26 AM    #

9. Obama really struck a note with the readers here. He’s all for community colleges and said so in a state that has none. That is, unless you all consider tech schools to be community colleges. Same for university extension centers. They’re all the same … Really?

   Does anyone know what we are talkng about? Go Obamama!

   — Jon in Tech School    Feb 18, 12:10 PM    #

10. Paula- you are right that I was over-simplistic in my response. Stepping away from ‘money’ and ‘income’, let us instead look at ‘valuable objects’, whether food, gold, whatever. Basically any object that can be bought with money. There is a finite amount of ‘valuable objects’, and possession of money is relatively meaningless in comparison to possession of ‘valuable objects’, because though the value of money fluctuates, we all need to eat.

    Yes, we all make choices, but it is fallacious to think that our choices determine everything that happens in our lives. Should the privileged few have an intrinsic right to better education merely because their parents have more money? Given that the availability of education is an intrinsic part of the definition of a fair democracy, what you are arguing for is more reminiscent of tyrannical oligarchy of the rich.

    Oh, and once again, you are resorting to insults to try and make a point. Please understand that in civil discourse insults and the like only serve to undermine the argument they accompany.

    — Dan    Feb 18, 02:25 PM    #

11. The underlying assumption is that taxpayers will have any monies to fund plant expenses in the coming four year cycle. Will Obama tap his big oil and big financial sponsers, and his Harvard address book to alleviate the burden on this demographic, and, if so, how can he support any long term profitibility for those constituencies? Loyal D is correct – campaign hype.

    — Glenn    Feb 18, 05:33 PM    #

12. Paula, do you have any actual FACTS to back up your argument? You’ve mentioned something particularly inflammatory about the professorship in America and perhaps you should, uh, prove it. How exactly is a person whose parents paid for their education “earning” their way. Answer…they’re not. I would recommend an education for you, Paula. You are guilty of making gross overgeneralizations about wealthy people that are simply not true and guilty of making gross overgeneralizations about poor people that are simply not true. How is it that a CEO works harder than a teacher or a police officer? How is it that you do not seem to understand the dynamics of wealth accumulation and illegal/immoral activity? How did Paris “earn” her way to the top by her choices? Please try to think a little before posting drivel.

    — loyal independent    Feb 19, 11:53 AM    #

13. It seems to me that Paula isn’t the only one making generalizations about the wealthy. Yes, many inherited their wealth and their morals can certainly be questioned … but many also earned it, either through hard work, brilliance, or some combination. These folks also give a lot back (ask your development officers where the largest donations come from).

    But there’s no need to go back to school to figure this out … I have a good friend whose father (mostly uneducated) said “I’ve never seen a poor man give anyone a job.”

    — Jay    Feb 19, 05:59 PM    #

Previous: House Democrats Ask Administration to Shore Up Student-Loan Market
Next: Classes to Resume on Feb. 25 at Northern Illinois