You might have to get smell of cotton candy and popcorn off you because you would be living at Disneyland.

There is much to be said for aiming high.

--imm

Clinton's plan is negotiate with the GOP. Sanders plan is to lead massive protests outside the capitol.

"Clinton's plan is negotiate with the GOP. " - Yup. Obama has been trying to get a similar community college plan passed through the GOP congress, and we can see how successful he's been.


"Sanders plan is to lead massive protests outside the capitol."- Well, there is more than one way to achieve the kind of "political revolution" he's talking about. Protests would be helpful. But protests or not, I think what it's ultimately going to take is a motivated base who will give him a more cooperative congress... if not in 2016, then incrementally, through 2018, 2020, and 2022 if need be. Will he get it? I don't know... but I'd say he's got a better shot at it than Hillary does.

the standard procedures. Hard to say just how or when.

I am extremely aware that real change only happens when people march.

--imm

That's an important first step.

Hillary's policies won't make it through Congress either although she's apparently fine with not getting anything done. We must get more liberal members in Congress no matter who our next president is.

Try to stay on topic.

I would like to keep this discussion limited to Clinton's plan. But I do think there are differences in terms of political strategies.

The problem with both plans is that they both require two equally difficult steps:

1) Passage through Congress
2) Execution by GOP Governors / GOP dominated state houses (in some states)

In Illinois, we have a governor who is going to veto SB2043, a senate bill to circumvent the budget deadlock and get MAP Grant funds to 130,000 low income students. These are funds that were already promised. Yet I'm to believe that Rauner, and Scott Walker, and Gregg Abbott, and Sam Brownbeck are going to happily go along with either a Sanders or Clinton proposal to disburse money to public colleges? We already know how some of these governors act relative to ACA.

Of course, the response is that there will be different political realities than there are now, due to groundswell or some such. Tra la!

It's perfectly legitimate to ask after the feasibility of a given proposal given the political realities that we know of. The fcat is that both these plans build in their own stumblingblocks at multiple levels. The level of the governorships and execution of the policy haven't been spoken about, but now they are.

Thanks for that. It gives people more to think about as they evaluate the feasibility of various proposals.

First off- I am for Sanders through primary. His wish list is just as imaginary at this point.

It's "no, she can't. But WE might."

Her plan also centers around lowering the interest rates on student loans.

If you lower the interest rate, you reduce payments...which means you can afford to borrow more money.

Clinton's plan actually drives most students deeper into debt.

other, much cheaper ($6billion a year) plan, the cost-effective one for free community college but not free four-year college tuition. I guess white millennials are not very interested in that one, because CC may be way too downscale and plebeian for most of them.

Called “ACP”, this plan, based on brilliant economic research that is persuasive even to Republican governors such as Bill Haslan , is no fantasy, but rather already a very popular reality in deep-red TN. It could well be one of the big successes of Hillary’s first 100-day agenda, with a huge future payoff in economic growth and reduction of income ineauality. See
http://fusion.net/story/120148/hillary-clinton-thinks-community-college-should-be-free/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1214225

and http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1213725

for more details.

I don't think either plan will do much to control costs.