Jump to content

Andrew Yang for prez...

SKJ

By SKJ
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted

I've been talking to people about Yang and his ideas quite a bit after seeing this. It occurred to me in listening to this that we're not only not addressing the real problems, but our way of digesting and analyzing policy publicly is outdated. I'm skeptical he gets anywhere, but no one could have foreseen Sanders' rise at this stage in 2016 either. I could see him catching on with a lot of young people. Honestly, the first declared candidate that I've been truly excited listing to this cycle.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13303

Posted
Posted (edited)

- Here's $1k/mth
- Don't go to college, it's not worth it
- I don't really have any other ideas for you, maybe find an apprenticeship?
- PROFIT?

Don't get me wrong, I like that he's at least acknowledging that there's a problem. That's actually pretty huge. The Democrats are extremely dismissive of working class whites and that's terrible for a dozen reasons. (*ahem*)

Yang is OBVIOUSLY both smart and a genuinely good human. I like him. (He also wants to go after the Purdues and other pharma monsters, which is awesome)

But really, he's still dealing with the symptoms of a larger disease without even acknowledging the disease, which is too-lightly-regulated capitalism. Also, his joining in the attempt to dismiss the value of secondary education is disheartening. The "free college!" movement is dismissed by the right as "oh so you want everyone to talk Women's Studies, huh???" and ignores the reality that "free college!" also includes every sort of secondary vocational training you could think of, so it really sucks to see someone as smart as Yang parrot that BS line.

Simply saying, "Do an apprenticeship!" is like telling a man in a desert to just reach down and grab a bottle of water. How many apprenticeships do you know of?

He was right about a ton of things:
- Take healthcare provision off the backs of business and individuals
- Lack of childcare produces worse childhoods, which in turn produces worse adulthoods
- Going after big pharma is a moral necessity

What I would really like to see from him is a policy of redistribution of the wealth and income of the nation. It doesn't have to be direct, but the lower and middle classes need more, and to get there the economy itself needs dramatic restructuring.

Edited by bad_teammate
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
15 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

- Here's $1k/mth
- Don't go to college, it's not worth it
- I don't really have any other ideas for you, maybe find an apprenticeship?
- PROFIT?

Don't get me wrong, I like that he's at least acknowledging that there's a problem. That's actually pretty huge. The Democrats are extremely dismissive of working class whites and that's terrible for a dozen reasons. (*ahem*)

Yang is OBVIOUSLY both smart and a genuinely good human. I like him. (He also wants to go after the Purdues and other pharma monsters, which is awesome)

But really, he's still dealing with the symptoms of a larger disease without even acknowledging the disease, which is too-lightly-regulated capitalism. Also, his joining in the attempt to dismiss the value of secondary education is disheartening. The "free college!" movement is dismissed by the right as "oh so you want everyone to talk Women's Studies, huh???" and ignores the reality that "free college!" also includes every sort of secondary vocational training you could think of, so it really sucks to see someone as smart as Yang parrot that BS line.

Simply saying, "Do an apprenticeship!" is like telling a man in a desert to just reach down and grab a bottle of water. How many apprenticeships do you know of?

He was right about a ton of things:
- Take healthcare provision off the backs of business and individuals
- Lack of childcare produces worse childhoods, which in turn produces worse adulthoods
- Going after big pharma is a moral necessity

What I would really like to see from him is a policy of redistribution of the wealth and income of the nation. It doesn't have to be direct, but the lower and middle classes need more, and to get there the economy itself needs dramatic restructuring.

I took it a little differently in the college thing, and that he was circling it around to ubi in that if you had 1,000 a month guaranteed to live on you'd see more of that... More freedom to find apprenticeships, and etc... I don't think he was thinking that free college is a bad step, but moreso that many of the jobs people are getting out of school are going to be automated and that we need to move more people into trades that are not easily automated.

He also wants to destroy the fucking drug war, and pardon all the non violent offenders on a mass scale.

I think the ubi proposal is the incremental first step in reversing the most dangerous threat to our society that no one is even talking about, and that no one will be able to solve in 8-10 years... It'll already be too late. Like he said, we're already in the third inning.

I've donated to him, just $10.00, but I got an email from him that we need to get a bunch more individual donors for him to be in the debates. Just a $1 donation from more people. 

Whatever. It's a long shot, but we can sit here as a country and argue about stupid shit like abortion and a fucking wall, but can't see the decimation of our economy literally a decade away

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
17 hours ago, horncyclist said:

I've been talking to people about Yang and his ideas quite a bit after seeing this. It occurred to me in listening to this that we're not only not addressing the real problems, but our way of digesting and analyzing policy publicly is outdated. I'm skeptical he gets anywhere, but no one could have foreseen Sanders' rise at this stage in 2016 either. I could see him catching on with a lot of young people. Honestly, the first declared candidate that I've been truly excited listing to this cycle.  

Just donate a dollar to him. Let him debate. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

How do you control inflation if you give everyone 1k a month? That's my main concern. 

From his website, also explained in the podcast

 

Wouldn’t that cause rampant inflation?

The federal government recently printed $4 trillion for the bank bailouts in its quantitative easing program with no inflation. Our plan for a Universal Basic Income uses money already in the economy. In monetary economics, leading theory states that inflation is based on changes in the supply of money. Our UBI plan has no changes in the supply of money because it is funded by a Value-added Tax. 

It is likely that some companies will increase their prices in response to people having more buying power, and a VAT would also increase prices marginally. However, there will still be competition between firms that will keep prices in check. Over time, technology will continue to decrease the prices of most goods where it is allowed to do so (e.g., clothing, media, consumer electronics, etc.). The main inflation we currently experience is in sectors where automation has not been applied due to government regulation or inapplicability – primarily housing, education, and healthcare. The real issue isn’t Universal Basic Income, it’s whether technology and automation will be allowed to reduce prices in different sectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13541

Posted
Posted

UBI seems inevitable to me but we’re not there yet.  And it may be 100 years before we are.    Income inequality will have to get much worse before UBI becomes a reality.  You need to tax the hell out of the wealthy and not enough people are behind that  

UBI already exists in some ways in terms of services.  Poorer people get access to better govt services because wealthier people live in their town paying more in taxes.  Schools, road, fire dept, etc.  

last note on UBI, I’ve heard that some UBI experiments that didn’t initially get the intended results.  The people receiving it said their life barely changed with an additional ~$500/month.   Until the experiment ended along with the income.  Then those people really missed it because they had gotten used to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horncyclist

horncyclist 1391

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

- Here's $1k/mth
- Don't go to college, it's not worth it
- I don't really have any other ideas for you, maybe find an apprenticeship?
- PROFIT?

Don't get me wrong, I like that he's at least acknowledging that there's a problem. That's actually pretty huge. The Democrats are extremely dismissive of working class whites and that's terrible for a dozen reasons. (*ahem*)

Yang is OBVIOUSLY both smart and a genuinely good human. I like him. (He also wants to go after the Purdues and other pharma monsters, which is awesome)

But really, he's still dealing with the symptoms of a larger disease without even acknowledging the disease, which is too-lightly-regulated capitalism. Also, his joining in the attempt to dismiss the value of secondary education is disheartening. The "free college!" movement is dismissed by the right as "oh so you want everyone to talk Women's Studies, huh???" and ignores the reality that "free college!" also includes every sort of secondary vocational training you could think of, so it really sucks to see someone as smart as Yang parrot that BS line.

Simply saying, "Do an apprenticeship!" is like telling a man in a desert to just reach down and grab a bottle of water. How many apprenticeships do you know of?

He was right about a ton of things:
- Take healthcare provision off the backs of business and individuals
- Lack of childcare produces worse childhoods, which in turn produces worse adulthoods
- Going after big pharma is a moral necessity

What I would really like to see from him is a policy of redistribution of the wealth and income of the nation. It doesn't have to be direct, but the lower and middle classes need more, and to get there the economy itself needs dramatic restructuring.

Did you listen to the podcast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parliament

Parliament 14375

Posted
Posted

The big shortcoming of UBI is that so many poor people can't manage money.  They'll spend their monthly check on random things, and still need heating assistance, free school lunches, etc.  ie, we'd soon find ourselves "doubling up" welfare programs.

The example I use is our tax system's refundable tax credits (EITC, dependent tax credit, child-care tax credit, etc). If I understand it right, people can get $8k back.  A person making $18k/year can get one, single check for $8k in March.  They don't spend that money very well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquishMitten

SquishMitten 10463

Posted
Posted

I don't think it's a bad idea when you look at it from an overall, societal economic standpoint. I just don't think we're anywhere near it becoming a possibility. For one, very few people will take the time to consider the full economics of it (much less have the ability to comprehend it). But more importantly, there's a substantial portion of our population that genuinely believes minorities have children for the sole purpose of increasing the government benefits available to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tucker

tucker 238

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Parliament said:

The big shortcoming of UBI is that so many poor people can't manage money.  They'll spend their monthly check on random things, and still need heating assistance, free school lunches, etc.  ie, we'd soon find ourselves "doubling up" welfare programs.

The example I use is our tax system's refundable tax credits (EITC, dependent tax credit, child-care tax credit, etc). If I understand it right, people can get $8k back.  A person making $18k/year can get one, single check for $8k in March.  They don't spend that money very well.

 

Is this even true? I know it is standard Republican talking point but there is no evidence that poor people are worse at managing money. They just don't have any of it. Look at Trump, he is terrible at managing money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11693

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, tucker said:

Is this even true? I know it is standard Republican talking point but there is no evidence that poor people are worse at managing money. They just don't have any of it. Look at Trump, he is terrible at managing money.

In my experience, yes.

You telling me you don't know people who spend whatever they have no matter how much it is?  I see that shit all the time.  They are continuously utterly amazed that they don't have enough money after a job is over, but when the good times are rolling its toys, toys, toys,...(toys being cars, drugs, alcohol, vacations, remodels, .....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tucker

tucker 238

Posted
Posted
Just now, Incredulity said:

In my experience, yes.

You telling me you don't know people who spend whatever they have no matter how much it is?  I see that shit all the time.  They are continuously utterly amazed that they don't have enough money after a job is over, but when the good times are rolling its toys, toys, toys,...(toys being cars, drugs, alcohol, vacations, remodels, .....)

Yes, people generally but the poor aren't worse than the average at managing money. I have seen high income people live paycheck to paycheck so there is probably an argument that upper middle class is the worst at managing money.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11693

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tucker said:

Yes, people generally but the poor aren't worse than the average at managing money. I have seen high income people live paycheck to paycheck so there is probably an argument that upper middle class is the worst at managing money.  

They just have more margin for error.

Giving everyone $1000 per month isn't going to solve shit.  Car payments and rents will eat that up in short order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34387

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

In my experience, yes.

You telling me you don't know people who spend whatever they have no matter how much it is?  I see that shit all the time.  They are continuously utterly amazed that they don't have enough money after a job is over, but when the good times are rolling its toys, toys, toys,...(toys being cars, drugs, alcohol, vacations, remodels, .....)

"everyone else is the same" isn't "poor people are worse." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
50 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don't think it's a bad idea when you look at it from an overall, societal economic standpoint. I just don't think we're anywhere near it becoming a possibility. For one, very few people will take the time to consider the full economics of it (much less have the ability to comprehend it). But more importantly, there's a substantial portion of our population that genuinely believes minorities have children for the sole purpose of increasing the government benefits available to them. 

This is addressed in the podcast, but the actual expenditure for it is pretty small

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

In my experience, yes.

You telling me you don't know people who spend whatever they have no matter how much it is?  I see that shit all the time.  They are continuously utterly amazed that they don't have enough money after a job is over, but when the good times are rolling its toys, toys, toys,...(toys being cars, drugs, alcohol, vacations, remodels, .....)

What percentage of Americans so you suppose this is?

Or is this just a random guess made about a population from anecdotal evidence?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Incredulity said:

giving people $1000 per month isn't giving them stuff.

perfectly succinct summary of leftist thinking.

 

And I'm just guessing you still haven't listened to the podcast.

If you did you'd understand my "leftist thinking"

I bet giving those rich people stuff totally works though. I hope you don't vote, because you're just another of the idiots that brought us Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1994

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, tucker said:

Yes, people generally but the poor aren't worse than the average at managing money. I have seen high income people live paycheck to paycheck so there is probably an argument that upper middle class is the worst at managing money.  

People who stay wealthy are better at money management than those who stay poor. I know, rocket surgery and shit. The perpetually poor, those this current give away scheme targets, won’t spend it well.

Go to Wally World in a poorer area on the day the government checks are cut, and notice what people show up driving, and what they leave the store with. It isn’t clunkers being filled with eggs and butter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tucker

tucker 238

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

People who stay wealthy are better at money management than those who stay poor. I know, rocket surgery and shit. The perpetually poor, those this current give away scheme targets, won’t spend it well.

Go to Wally World in a poorer area on the day the government checks are cut, and notice what people show up driving, and what they leave the store with. It isn’t clunkers being filled with eggs and butter. 

Or one group has so much margin for error that fuck ups don't impact their wealth while the poor never make enough to cover even basic necessities. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

People who stay wealthy are better at money management than those who stay poor. I know, rocket surgery and shit. The perpetually poor, those this current give away scheme targets, won’t spend it well.

Go to Wally World in a poorer area on the day the government checks are cut, and notice what people show up driving, and what they leave the store with. It isn’t clunkers being filled with eggs and butter. 

This doesn't Target the perpetually poor. You're arguing from a false assumption.

This targets you.

Listen to the podcast or Google this shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11693

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, SKJ said:

And I'm just guessing you still haven't listened to the podcast.

If you did you'd understand my "leftist thinking"

I bet giving those rich people stuff totally works though. I hope you don't vote, because you're just another of the idiots that brought us Trump.

Giving anyone shit doesn't work.  

See the above anecdote about Wally World and Gov't Check day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parliament

Parliament 14375

Posted
Posted
Is this even true? I know it is standard Republican talking point but there is no evidence that poor people are worse at managing money. They just don't have any of it. Look at Trump, he is terrible at managing money.

Yeah, I should have put it that way. I hang with Shaggy 20%ers, and it amazes me how many of them don't save money.

 

My point stands though, as they would not receive any UBI.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted

So the uninformed can shut the fuck up:

From his website:

Andrew would implement a Universal Basic Income, ‘The Freedom Dividend,’ of $1,000/month, $12,000 a year for every American adult over the age of 18. This is independent of one’s work status or any other factor. This would enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves, start businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work, spend time with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake in the future.

  • Any change to The Freedom Dividend would require a constitutional amendment.
  • It will be illegal to lend or borrow against one’s Dividend.
  • If one does not graduate from high school, your dividend does not begin until 20.

A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people.  Putting money into people’s hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth and the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

laughable at best.

 

I don't know what you do, but does your career isolate you from automation? 

You really should listen to the podcast because he destroys your position

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

because you are easily persuaded, doesn't mean anything has been "destroyed".

Because you haven't even listened, or given it any real thought, yes...

You are arguing from a silly, foregone conclusion

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1994

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, SKJ said:

This doesn't Target the perpetually poor. You're arguing from a false assumption.

This targets you.

Listen to the podcast or Google this shit. 

Yeah, actually it does. Giving me $12k a year represents a tax cut, but doesn’t really make a dent in whether I pay my bills or not. 

Giving $12k to many poor people just means they will make further bad financial decisions with an extra zero or two attached. Perhaps if that money were strictly restricted to necessities and took the place of other handouts then I could sort of buy off on it. 

But how do you fund such a thing? My back of the hand math says it represents a $2.4T give away. For some it would essentially be a tax cut. For many it’s a blatant give away. And you can’t bilk the rich enough to come up with that kinda scratch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Yeah, actually it does. Giving me $12k a year represents a tax cut, but doesn’t really make a dent in whether I pay my bills or not. 

Giving $12k to many poor people just means they will make further bad financial decisions with an extra zero or two attached. Perhaps if that money were strictly restricted to necessities and took the place of other handouts then I could sort of buy off on it. 

But how do you fund such a thing? My back of the hand math says it represents a $2.4T give away. For some it would essentially be a tax cut. For many it’s a blatant give away. And you can’t bilk the rich enough to come up with that kinda scratch. 

He breaks down the numbers quite easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1994

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, tucker said:

Or one group has so much margin for error that fuck ups don't impact their wealth while the poor never make enough to cover even basic necessities. 

You’re arguing from a wrong thesis. Wealthy folks aren’t wealthy because they have more margin for error. They don’t make many dumb financial decisions in the first place. You can’t out earn stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1994

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, SKJ said:

He breaks down the numbers quite easily. 

Pretend I don’t have two hours to listen and break them down here. 

Edit:

1. Consolidation of government subsidies. Ok. Fine. 

2. 10% VAT. Not fine. 

3 and 4: this creates jobs which generates tax revenues and decreased health care costs and incarcerations. Dubious IMOHO. 

Edited by Bobby_Batronic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Pretend I don’t have two hours to listen and break them down here. 

Edit:

1. Consolidation of government subsidies. Ok. Fine. 

2. 10% VAT. Not fine. 

3 and 4: this creates jobs which generates tax revenues and decreased health care costs and incarcerations. Dubious IMOHO. 

The VAT is a necessity with the coming change in our economy through automation. The way he puts it is that you can't tax robots.

The VAT would also generate more tax revenues than the current method considering the offshoring of profits from corporations.

There have been plenty of studies showing causality between much of crime and poverty. I guess we could look them up and debate them, but it's pretty much been debated to death

Edited by SKJ
Autospell sucks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby_Batronic

Bobby_Batronic 1994

Posted
Posted

Are you inferring a VAT in lieu of the current tax system or in place of it?

Crime and poverty is one thing. I would argue that the benefits would be minimal because another $12k wouldn’t be spent wisely by those who actually need it. 

Generating 4.5 million new jobs and reaping the benefits of taxing those jobs is the truly dubious part. 

Im ok with making some seismic shifts in policy and the way we handle the indigent. Young minds and bright ideas and all.  But a VAT is simply passed on to consumers. Consumers who either won’t buy the product or who will have to pay more for it contracting the value of their spending dollar.

There’s still a $1T+ shortfall assuming that this takes the place of other federal subsidies, the new jobs and tax income happens and resultant crime reduction occurs resulting in $1.2-3ishT in income to apply to UBI. One that Yang suggest we make up with a VAT. I’m fairly confident that $1T in additional taxation per year isn’t going to do our economy any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...