Cuomo gets free college up to $125K, NY 1st state to do so.

[henster]

He certainly gets bragging rights if he runs in 2020.

https://twitter.com/melissadderosa/status/850516318193430528

[Confused Democrat]

Let's see what the deal looks like, and let's see if it passes in the state legislature.

If it's a good bill and it passes, then he gets to brag.

[Ebsy]

Somehow Cuomo has accumulated quite the record of legislative accomplishments, even with a hostile legislature.

[MAINEiac4434]

I am totally fine with him pretending to be a progressive if it actual results in progressive things getting done.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The poor were mostly paying fees and not tuition anyways, since TAP covers up to 90% of tuition but 0% of fees. So this doesn't do much for the poor.

[MM876]

How progressive does he have to pretend to be before he accidentally turns himself into a progressive?

Credit where credit is due, though, if I'm not missing something this is a good step on his part. I hate to admit it, but if he keeps this up I'll keep an open mind for 2020. There's always the possibility he pulls an LBJ and for some crazy reason goes from HP to FF.

[Shadows]

Can Cuomo get Carbon Taxes & legalize Marijuana to pretend to boost his progressive credentials?

[Santander]

The poor were mostly paying fees and not tuition anyways, since TAP covers up to 90% of tuition but 0% of fees. So this doesn't do much for the poor.

Oh, boo hoo. Some people will never be satisfied until we have full blown Communism.

[Rjjr77]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

[Shadows]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can Cuomo get Carbon Taxes & legalize Marijuana to pretend to boost his progressive credentials?

Yes, sell yourselves smartly to the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party, squeeze every penny. If they hate/are scared enough of Trump, they will pay any price for the Democratic Party.

[Shadows]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

He is totally wrong & is absolutely absurd about this. How can something not be free if it costs 0 $ to the user or consumer?

That is what the definition of free is - How much is charged from the user or how much the user is paying (0 $ in this case).

Can't believe this has to be argued with educated people !

[Rjjr77]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

I'd sit here and write the lengthy essay on everything from opportunity cost to what free truly means, but it would just get ignored by shadows, which is why I ignore his posts and so should you.

[SWE]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

deep imo

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

He is totally wrong & is absolutely absurd about this. How can something not be free if it costs 0 $ to the user or consumer?

That is what the definition of free is - How much is charged from the user or how much the user is paying (0 $ in this case).

Can't believe this has to be argued with educated people !

In business, there is something call OTP or "Other People's Money". Donald Trump thrived off of it.

Nothing is free. It is paid for by you, or someone pays the equivalent costs for you, which is called third party payer or other people's money.

Nothing is free. The teachers are getting paid, the building is being maintained etc. There is a per unit cost for every student, so no, it is not "free" to send anyone to college. "It is free only to extent that someone else is picking up the tab.

I went to college on pell grants, I have no problem with helping those who cannot afford college. But at no point did I consider what I was getting "free".  I considered it a subsidized education at taxpayer expense for the betterment of society and I maintained a 4.0 average every semester until I graduated.

You may consider that "free" because it is not coming out of your pocket, but I must say that is a very irresponsible narrative that will encourage people to slack off because they are not paying for it themselves, when they should be doing the exact opposite and working harder because they been given an opportunity.

[Shadows]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

He is totally wrong & is absolutely absurd about this. How can something not be free if it costs 0 $ to the user or consumer?

That is what the definition of free is - How much is charged from the user or how much the user is paying (0 $ in this case).

Can't believe this has to be argued with educated people !

In business, there is something call OTP or "Other People's Money". Donald Trump thrived off of it.

Nothing is free. It is paid for by you, or someone pays the equivalent costs for you, which is called third party payer or other people's money.

Nothing is free. The teachers are getting paid, the building is being maintained etc. There is a per unit cost for every student, so no, it is not "free" to send anyone to college. "It is free only to extent that someone else is picking up the tab.

I went to college on pell grants, I have no problem with helping those who cannot afford college. But at no point did I consider what I was getting "free".  I considered it a subsidized education at taxpayer expense for the betterment of society and I maintained a 4.0 average every semester until I graduated.

You may consider that "free" because it is not coming out of your pocket, but I must say that is a very irresponsible narrative that will encourage people to slack off because they are not paying for it themselves, when they should be doing the exact opposite and working harder because they been given an opportunity.

I find it baffling how educated people don't know that the term free means it costs nothing to the buyer or consumer.

Whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees, whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees + some profits for the institution to make, whether you pay say 50% of your fees + State funding, is absolutely irrelevant here & is a different discussion. Saying somethings is free or costs 0$ doesn't mean it now takes magically 0$ to manufacture that good or create that service.

The Tuition free college argument has already been debated to death here - I don't want to derail the thread again - Some of the points were K-12 education 50 years ago is equivalent to a College Degree now, Importance of having an educated workforce to compete globally, most good jobs requiring a College Degree instead of K-12, massive debt creating an economic bubble, massive debt bringing down demand for goods,services & depressing GDP, high debt not allowing some people to go to college or preventing people from doing jobs they like etc which are economic losses too.

If you want to have a discussion on the usefulness of Tuition Free college, you have another thread & discuss your ideas. But to call something which costs 0$ to the consumer not free is ridiculous & frankly ignorant & is only biased ideology speaking & not the truth !

[Bismarck]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

He is totally wrong & is absolutely absurd about this. How can something not be free if it costs 0 $ to the user or consumer?

That is what the definition of free is - How much is charged from the user or how much the user is paying (0 $ in this case).

Can't believe this has to be argued with educated people !

In business, there is something call OTP or "Other People's Money". Donald Trump thrived off of it.

Nothing is free. It is paid for by you, or someone pays the equivalent costs for you, which is called third party payer or other people's money.

Nothing is free. The teachers are getting paid, the building is being maintained etc. There is a per unit cost for every student, so no, it is not "free" to send anyone to college. "It is free only to extent that someone else is picking up the tab.

I went to college on pell grants, I have no problem with helping those who cannot afford college. But at no point did I consider what I was getting "free".  I considered it a subsidized education at taxpayer expense for the betterment of society and I maintained a 4.0 average every semester until I graduated.

You may consider that "free" because it is not coming out of your pocket, but I must say that is a very irresponsible narrative that will encourage people to slack off because they are not paying for it themselves, when they should be doing the exact opposite and working harder because they been given an opportunity.

I find it baffling how educated people don't know that the term free means it costs nothing to the buyer or consumer.

Whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees, whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees + some profits for the institution to make, whether you pay say 50% of your fees + State funding, is absolutely irrelevant here & is a different discussion. Saying somethings is free or costs 0$ doesn't mean it now takes magically 0$ to manufacture that good or create that service.

The Tuition free college argument has already been debated to death here - I don't want to derail the thread again - Some of the points were K-12 education 50 years ago is equivalent to a College Degree now, Importance of having an educated workforce to compete globally, most good jobs requiring a College Degree instead of K-12, massive debt creating an economic bubble, massive debt bringing down demand for goods,services & depressing GDP, high debt not allowing some people to go to college or preventing people from doing jobs they like etc which are economic losses too.

If you want to have a discussion on the usefulness of Tuition Free college, you have another thread & discuss your ideas. But to call something which costs 0$ to the consumer not free is ridiculous & frankly ignorant & is only biased ideology speaking & not the truth !

It is free for the consumer yes but it still costs something to produce it. It's not as if nobody has to pay for it. Making it free for one person just means shifting the cost to a different person. I would think an educated person would be able to understand the point that they are trying to make..

[America Needs R'hllor]

At this rate, Progressives should just keep electing Cuomos as NY Governors and wait for them to want to run for President Soon enough, New York will become the most Progressive state in the union.

[Skill and Chance]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

He is totally wrong & is absolutely absurd about this. How can something not be free if it costs 0 $ to the user or consumer?

That is what the definition of free is - How much is charged from the user or how much the user is paying (0 $ in this case).

Can't believe this has to be argued with educated people !

In business, there is something call OTP or "Other People's Money". Donald Trump thrived off of it.

Nothing is free. It is paid for by you, or someone pays the equivalent costs for you, which is called third party payer or other people's money.

Nothing is free. The teachers are getting paid, the building is being maintained etc. There is a per unit cost for every student, so no, it is not "free" to send anyone to college. "It is free only to extent that someone else is picking up the tab.

I went to college on pell grants, I have no problem with helping those who cannot afford college. But at no point did I consider what I was getting "free".  I considered it a subsidized education at taxpayer expense for the betterment of society and I maintained a 4.0 average every semester until I graduated.

You may consider that "free" because it is not coming out of your pocket, but I must say that is a very irresponsible narrative that will encourage people to slack off because they are not paying for it themselves, when they should be doing the exact opposite and working harder because they been given an opportunity.

I find it baffling how educated people don't know that the term free means it costs nothing to the buyer or consumer.

Whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees, whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees + some profits for the institution to make, whether you pay say 50% of your fees + State funding, is absolutely irrelevant here & is a different discussion. Saying somethings is free or costs 0$ doesn't mean it now takes magically 0$ to manufacture that good or create that service.

The Tuition free college argument has already been debated to death here - I don't want to derail the thread again - Some of the points were K-12 education 50 years ago is equivalent to a College Degree now, Importance of having an educated workforce to compete globally, most good jobs requiring a College Degree instead of K-12, massive debt creating an economic bubble, massive debt bringing down demand for goods,services & depressing GDP, high debt not allowing some people to go to college or preventing people from doing jobs they like etc which are economic losses too.

If you want to have a discussion on the usefulness of Tuition Free college, you have another thread & discuss your ideas. But to call something which costs 0$ to the consumer not free is ridiculous & frankly ignorant & is only biased ideology speaking & not the truth !

It is free for the consumer yes but it still costs something to produce it. It's not as if nobody has to pay for it. Making it free for one person just means shifting the cost to a different person. I would think an educated person would be able to understand the point that they are trying to make..

This is why I am more in favor of a guarantee that you will never have to worry about spending more than 5 or 10% of household income on health care or education (at near median income levels, perhaps rising slowly from 1% for the poorest families to 20% for those making >$250K) rather than making it outright free.  Better to ask people to front the small stuff to discourage misuse and cover catastrophe/amazing opportunity in full.

[Famous Mortimer]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

He is not wrong in general terms, though.

He is totally wrong & is absolutely absurd about this. How can something not be free if it costs 0 $ to the user or consumer?

That is what the definition of free is - How much is charged from the user or how much the user is paying (0 $ in this case).

Can't believe this has to be argued with educated people !

In business, there is something call OTP or "Other People's Money". Donald Trump thrived off of it.

Nothing is free. It is paid for by you, or someone pays the equivalent costs for you, which is called third party payer or other people's money.

Nothing is free. The teachers are getting paid, the building is being maintained etc. There is a per unit cost for every student, so no, it is not "free" to send anyone to college. "It is free only to extent that someone else is picking up the tab.

I went to college on pell grants, I have no problem with helping those who cannot afford college. But at no point did I consider what I was getting "free".  I considered it a subsidized education at taxpayer expense for the betterment of society and I maintained a 4.0 average every semester until I graduated.

You may consider that "free" because it is not coming out of your pocket, but I must say that is a very irresponsible narrative that will encourage people to slack off because they are not paying for it themselves, when they should be doing the exact opposite and working harder because they been given an opportunity.

I find it baffling how educated people don't know that the term free means it costs nothing to the buyer or consumer.

Whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees, whether you pay 100% of the cost of your fees + some profits for the institution to make, whether you pay say 50% of your fees + State funding, is absolutely irrelevant here & is a different discussion. Saying somethings is free or costs 0$ doesn't mean it now takes magically 0$ to manufacture that good or create that service.

The Tuition free college argument has already been debated to death here - I don't want to derail the thread again - Some of the points were K-12 education 50 years ago is equivalent to a College Degree now, Importance of having an educated workforce to compete globally, most good jobs requiring a College Degree instead of K-12, massive debt creating an economic bubble, massive debt bringing down demand for goods,services & depressing GDP, high debt not allowing some people to go to college or preventing people from doing jobs they like etc which are economic losses too.

If you want to have a discussion on the usefulness of Tuition Free college, you have another thread & discuss your ideas. But to call something which costs 0$ to the consumer not free is ridiculous & frankly ignorant & is only biased ideology speaking & not the truth !

It is free for the consumer yes but it still costs something to produce it. It's not as if nobody has to pay for it. Making it free for one person just means shifting the cost to a different person. I would think an educated person would be able to understand the point that they are trying to make..

This is why I am more in favor of a guarantee that you will never have to worry about spending more than 5 or 10% of household income on health care or education (at near median income levels, perhaps rising slowly from 1% for the poorest families to 20% for those making >$250K) rather than making it outright free.  Better to ask people to front the small stuff to discourage misuse and cover catastrophe/amazing opportunity in full.

Means testing is dumb. Free-at-pont-of-access for everyone, funded by progressive income tax is the the only way.

[Suburbia]

Someone has to pay for the free college, but it sounds good. However, someone has to pay for it. Also, hopefully the students graduate on time, less remedial classes (which waste $$$$$ and doesn't add to credits), and graduates with some major that is useful in the 21st century American workforce.

Underestimate Cuomo at your own peril. I think Cuomo and Warren are high-risk, medium reward candidates.

A Cuomo/Warren ticket would unite the Democratic Party, adding to that, reinforcing the party as a Northern, liberal party if they aren't any Southerners or Midwesterners to choose.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The poor were mostly paying fees and not tuition anyways, since TAP covers up to 90% of tuition but 0% of fees. So this doesn't do much for the poor.

Oh, boo hoo. Some people will never be satisfied until we have full blown Communism.

These are mandatory fees that aren't really that different than tuition, except that New York state doesn't have any financial aid to cover them. California does.

[cinyc]

It's not free, someone has to pay for it.

Pretty weird & ignorant post. When you talk about something being free, you talk about it being free or costing nothing from the perspective of the consumer/buyer.

That is kind of basic & you don't really need a Phd to know what the term "free" means or are people gonna come up with ridiculous new definitions to justify such posts?

There is no such thing as a free lunch - or free college tuition, or free healthcare or free anything.  Somebody has to pay for it. 

If you still don't understand, Google Milton Friedman.

[Famous Mortimer]

Everyone understands that tax money will be necessary to fund this. No one is denying that. Why are you acting like they are?