Kamala Harris: Medicare for all, free pre-K, debt free college, $500 guaranteed pay increase

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,890
5,001
126
Medicare for All - not free, paid for through taxes, but a net savings for most Americans since Medicare for All would likely save our country money.
Universal pre-K - again, not free, paid for through taxes, however once again likely to save money (although not short term) since pre-K has been shown to improve education outcomes which will save money later in life. Research has quite thoroughly shown it is far cheaper and more effective to educate at a young age than it is to correct at an older age.
Debt free college - Not free, just affordable, similar to how college was when all the boomers were going to school.
Middle class family tax cut - right there in the tweet how it will be paid for.

Thank you for this post. I am soooooo sick of the right leaners using "free" as a derogatory term. Painfully misleading while they demand their "free" wall and such. Heaven forbid we want to use our taxes for the betterment of all our citizens instead of (not) using it to keep our citizens sick and dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Linux23

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,365
1,223
126
Until people can start getting the "wealthy" to directly employ and share more of their wealth, we will be creating a society of mainly takers that are dependent on the government. It's a terrible idea for the government to be distributing "free" things. People need to earn their way and have a sense of purpose. Making the government into "Robin Hood" is only going to create a new ruling class that is not answerable to anyone and voting will go the way of the dinosaur because we will stop having power over politicians.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,649
33,240
136
Anyone with half a brain knows the answer to that: Telling kids "I'm sorry, you're too fucking stupid for this University. maybe you will have better luck getting accepted to xyz trade school instead" is the only way to have "free college"
Maybe you and the rest of the Trump lickers can reopen Trump University
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,947
31,484
146
We do need more students going into trade school instead of paying $100k for a degree that won't land them a decent job.

What trades will be left to them? robot repair? How many is that going to employ?
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Your use of words and definitions are either incorrect or inaccurate. You're saying ALL your taxes -- taken from your paycheck are "payroll" taxes, but as I understand it, SS and Medicare are "payroll" taxes. With those two items, you are paying for something you might ordinarily PAY FOR if you were responsible for yourself and had the foresight to do it. Instead, we created those programs so that even those with a lack of foresight or even the MEANS would have a safety-net for old age and some health care.

Do you know the story of Ayn Rand? She must have squandered every penny she had. Apparently the royalties for her books didn't make her all that prosperous. Perhaps it was the drugs she abused. In those days, it probably wasn't the cigarettes, because they cost 25 cents a pack then.

But she developed lung-cancer, and couldn't afford medical care. Medicare had just become a reality. She was able to benefit from her husband's social security.

She was SO ASHAMED! She HATED the fact that her only salvation would come from Social Security and Medicare. But those programs took care of her in her last days.

Frankly, I think someone should've dropped her over Niagara Falls before she developed a limited following with her books. There is no Humanities department in the US that I know of which considers her a serious topic of study. Oh! All dem humanities departments -- literature, language, etc. -- dey all be soshaliss'!! Dem Librals would logically be found in de LIB-ER-AL ARTS programs, wouldn't dey! Tryin' to suck the precious bodily fluids out of students keen on languages. Languages are so soshaliss! Whas so impotent about great books and writing? You don't need to write! Get out there and make some money!

The Bitch never took a course in Economics or the other social sciences. Her "philosophy" derives from an education in the classic philosophy of the Ancients and she was big fan of Nietzsche. She got a free education through graduate "film school" in the USSR. Cecil B. DeMille made her his protégé, and that was the square she landed on when she came to America.

Perhaps she was bitter that her father's pharmacy was confiscated by the Bolsheviks, because she could no longer sneak into the back room and steal amphetamines and other wonderful brain vitamins.

Yes, I have heard the story. Don't care for Ayn Rand at all, but I do agree that SS and Medicare are vital programs. I don't, however, believe we should means test SS or remove the income limit on SS taxes.

Given that, SS is a deeply flawed system that made a lot of sense when the average household size was 4.11 but not today at 2.5. People just aren't having enough kids to sustain SS any longer.

You're also correct that "payroll taxes" would mean SS and Medicare tax only. My mistake.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
A completely different presupposition says -- if you can't write, you can't think. I say it is more accurately a telltale symptom. People are judged on this in a variety of employments. But here, it was just an entre. I'm fed up with people who whine about their taxes. I know my own income, I know what I paid when I worked two jobs at once as an overall percentage. that is , the Federal and State taxes paid every year or withheld and then completely paid every April.

If your Federal taxes alone (alone!) put you into the 32% tax bracket, your sense of impoverishment for living on the remainder is mostly resentment that you can't afford a new Mercedes every year, but must make a trade-in every third year. One can extrapolate the real-estate, unless such a person is a total twit and blows his income down the toilet.

Here, the poster in question has lumped together just about every dollar withheld plus every dollar paid directly as a "payroll tax." Why, he's just so impoverished by the progressive tax. It's just terrible! Just terrible, I say! He should be totally and apoplectically mortified and crushed!

He obviously works for a living. My retirement income is modest, but my taxes and his are closer together on the scale than his taxes in relation to the "32% FEDERAL bracket." And he whines.

He should try keeping a budget in QuickBooks, and learn to live prudently well on what he has. Maybe he shouldn't strive to live in Dallas' Preston Park, or lust after a Lamborghini -- which he cannot afford.

Again, more demonization. I never said I was impoverished, that taxes don't allow me to live the life I want, or that progressive taxes are bad.

Unlike some of my co-workers, I don't create bogus LLC's or buy second properties as tax shelters to game the system. My wife and I were poor 13 years ago and had to use government programs to get by. We were young and stupid. So when I pay my taxes I feel good about the fact that other citizens and tax payers took a chance on me and gave me the assistance I needed to get to where I am today.

However, that does not mean that I'm a whipping boy when people scream that I'm the "evil rich" or that I don't pay my "fair share" and demand that my tax rates go even higher still and that I should just smile and hand over higher and higher percentages of taxes.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
Medicare for All - not free, paid for through taxes, but a net savings for most Americans since Medicare for All would likely save our country money.
Universal pre-K - again, not free, paid for through taxes, however once again likely to save money (although not short term) since pre-K has been shown to improve education outcomes which will save money later in life. Research has quite thoroughly shown it is far cheaper and more effective to educate at a young age than it is to correct at an older age.
Debt free college - Not free, just affordable, similar to how college was when all the boomers were going to school.
Middle class family tax cut - right there in the tweet how it will be paid for.

This is all great but the insurance industry employs 2.5mill+ people and no congress including Kamala will approve legislation that destroys that many jobs. The sad thing is that insurance industry is probably a driving factor for the higher costs in medical care which make it unaffordable.

You don't have it listed but I think it is a crime that we have to pay property taxes. You can't even own/be debt free for your property if you are out of work/retired, you are still a slave to the government. The idea of taxing purchases and income is ok but being taxed on owned property is lame. At least the first owned property should be tax free.

My old dorm has a Starbucks on the first floor, flat screens in each room, free cable tv etc... These luxuries have exploded the costs of college. Teaching someone about literature, math doesn't have to be expensive. Free Trade schools would be much more interesting...maybe even have them available for all ages. It would be great to have continued education for all your life, imagine the impact that would have on the culture.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
12,065
2,278
126
Until people can start getting the "wealthy" to directly employ and share more of their wealth, we will be creating a society of mainly takers that are dependent on the government. It's a terrible idea for the government to be distributing "free" things. People need to earn their way and have a sense of purpose. Making the government into "Robin Hood" is only going to create a new ruling class that is not answerable to anyone and voting will go the way of the dinosaur because we will stop having power over politicians.
It's not "free" if taxes are paying for it. In Canada we do pay fairly high taxes to pay for medicare, etc. I am near 30% myself but I don't mind as I would not want myself (I am in my 30s so I'm fine healthwise) or anyone else to go bankrupt from medical bills for example. Giving tax cuts to ultra rich and corporations is not a great way to go if you actually want to help the majority of the people there. Until the big money (and hence corruption/influence) is taken out of politics, things are going to be hard to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Homerboy

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,323
47,721
136
This is all great but the insurance industry employees 2.5mill+ people and no congress including Kamala will approve legislation that destroys that many jobs. The sad thing is that insurance industry is probably a driving factor for the higher costs in medical care which make it unaffordable.

This is...not a good argument for keeping private health insurance. Also 2.5M for people working in health insurance alone sounds a touch high. Maybe all insurance.

An orderly phase out that moves those people who do work in the sector to new jobs in whatever program is approved would seem to be the best option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Until people can start getting the "wealthy" to directly employ and share more of their wealth, we will be creating a society of mainly takers that are dependent on the government. It's a terrible idea for the government to be distributing "free" things. People need to earn their way and have a sense of purpose. Making the government into "Robin Hood" is only going to create a new ruling class that is not answerable to anyone and voting will go the way of the dinosaur because we will stop having power over politicians.

Until we all have unicorns to ride we'll be walking. Greed at the top precludes the investor class from hiring any more Americans than necessary to serve their ends. We already have a ruling class not answerable to the people because they've bent public perception to their purposes for decades. Your headset illustrates that rather well.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
Thank you for this post. I am soooooo sick of the right leaners using "free" as a derogatory term. Painfully misleading while they demand their "free" wall and such. Heaven forbid we want to use our taxes for the betterment of all our citizens instead of (not) using it to keep our citizens sick and dumb.

Then fucking tell people that you imbecile.

Don't tell your voters "Were going to make the rich pay!" when the reality is that THEY (the voters) will be paying - and it will be a damn significant chunk out of their paycheck - which they are already complaining is too low.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Until people can start getting the "wealthy" to directly employ and share more of their wealth, we will be creating a society of mainly takers that are dependent on the government. It's a terrible idea for the government to be distributing "free" things. People need to earn their way and have a sense of purpose. Making the government into "Robin Hood" is only going to create a new ruling class that is not answerable to anyone and voting will go the way of the dinosaur because we will stop having power over politicians.

So you prefer our current system, where only a few are takers from the government in a reverse Robin Hood fashion, and we are dependent upon them?
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Until people can start getting the "wealthy" to directly employ and share more of their wealth, we will be creating a society of mainly takers that are dependent on the government. It's a terrible idea for the government to be distributing "free" things. People need to earn their way and have a sense of purpose. Making the government into "Robin Hood" is only going to create a new ruling class that is not answerable to anyone and voting will go the way of the dinosaur because we will stop having power over politicians.

We are already there. Gov is just the vehicle to write the rules of the game and distribute wealth when it gets unbalanced.

Clearly we are out of balance and in need of a realignment.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136

Look at how giddy she gets when describing how she threatened parents with jail time if their kid didn't go to school.

I don't think the state should allow parents to not educate their children. Not sending them to school does them harm.

Her role was State AG and to enforce laws, not to create and admin assistance programs. She could create the pressure for the responsible legislative officials to get off their ass however.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,406
136
Then fucking tell people that you imbecile.

Don't tell your voters "Were going to make the rich pay!" when the reality is that THEY (the voters) will be paying - and it will be a damn significant chunk out of their paycheck - which they are already complaining is too low.

Again not so sure of that,
If what every company and every citizen pays in taxes to support healthcare, COBRA and federal/state healthcare support. Made that into a tax to provide healthcare for all, tweaked the system a little bit like allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices I can’t imagine it being more money. We have the most expensive health system in the world with multiple layers of inefficiency. Every privatized system on the planet runs lower cost than what we currently have. I really don’t think there would be that much of a tax impact, to be clear I mean what is the difference in paying $250 per month for insurance policy fees vs paying $250 per month in taxes to provide healthcare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Linux23

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,637
136
This is all great but the insurance industry employs 2.5mill+ people and no congress including Kamala will approve legislation that destroys that many jobs. The sad thing is that insurance industry is probably a driving factor for the higher costs in medical care which make it unaffordable.

You don't have it listed but I think it is a crime that we have to pay property taxes. You can't even own/be debt free for your property if you are out of work/retired, you are still a slave to the government. The idea of taxing purchases and income is ok but being taxed on owned property is lame. At least the first owned property should be tax free.

My old dorm has a Starbucks on the first floor, flat screens in each room, free cable tv etc... These luxuries have exploded the costs of college. Teaching someone about literature, math doesn't have to be expensive. Free Trade schools would be much more interesting...maybe even have them available for all ages. It would be great to have continued education for all your life, imagine the impact that would have on the culture.
As someone else pointed out below, not all insurance would disappear, just health insurance. About 460,000 people work in health insurance. Even with a single payer healthcare system, some people would most likely still pay for private health insurance, so not all those jobs would be lost. But you are correct, it is going to cost jobs. Same as it will if we ever cut back the size of the military to a more reasonable level. Same as it will for any kind of cost cutting measure. We probably wouldn't want to make this transition in the heart of a recession, but right now would actually be a great time with current employment as strong as it is.

As for property taxes, that is a local government issue. However, considering that property taxes are used to fund local services such as fire departments and police forces, it makes sense to me that there should be some level of taxation. Taxes are just part of being able to enjoy modern, civilized society.

As for cost of education, there are several facets. First, there is the issue of tuition. There are two primary drivers for this. One is the cost of administration, which is ballooning out of control because Americans are so distrusting of government. They are so afraid that faculty are just sitting in their ivory towers pondering the stars, and not providing good education, that we've developed these huge bureaucracies tasked with quantifying the quality of education. This has led to private, for profit education companies like Pearson that try to keep education dependent on their services. They push for ever stricter accreditation requirements for measuring that quality to try to drive universities to depend on these services. In addition to the growing number of administrators required to handle this extra load, the salaries of administrators have been ballooning as well.

The second issue contributing to rising tuition costs is a decrease in state funding. Across the nation, since about the 80's the percentage of a states budget appropriated for higher education has been steadily declining. It has made some moderate gains in many states since the recession, but is nowhere near where it once was.

Finally, there are housing costs. This part is a challenge to address, because on the one hand you have people griping about the costs of university housing being out of control because of luxurious dorm rooms with all the amenities. On the other hand, you have the issue that when schools build basic, no frills dorms as affordable housing options, they can't fill them.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,424
1,637
136
So how do you drive down the cost of college, especially when opening it up to more people. Or is the true cost the same and rising, we just subsidize it more.
You do a few things. You cut back the accreditation industry so that colleges and universities don't have to spend half their resources taking care of it and its related tasks. Simultaneously, you cut back on university level administrators. Many of our universities now spend more money on administration than they do on teaching and research faculty. Finally, you restore public funding of higher education to the same level it was at back in the 70s and 80s. That won't bring costs down completely. We simply run degree programs now that are more expensive than they were 50 years ago. High tech degrees such as engineering, robotics, and sciences require lots of expensive equipment. However, it will have a significant impact.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
You do a few things. You cut back the accreditation industry so that colleges and universities don't have to spend half their resources taking care of it and its related tasks. Simultaneously, you cut back on university level administrators. Many of our universities now spend more money on administration than they do on teaching and research faculty. Finally, you restore public funding of higher education to the same level it was at back in the 70s and 80s. That won't bring costs down completely. We simply run degree programs now that are more expensive than they were 50 years ago. High tech degrees such as engineering, robotics, and sciences require lots of expensive equipment. However, it will have a significant impact.

I think the real way to bring down the cost of higher education is to stop requiring every low-mid level corporate job to have a college degree. I have a coworker that works in this type of job and she does not have a degree, and she does absolutely fine. But there is no way she would ever be hired today without it.

I don't know how you do that though.