Andrew Yang for prez...

[bad_teammate 13,481]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not sure we know much about Yang but he could potentially confound trump.

Impossible. Trump is an idiot and terrible at many things. He's not a strategist. But he's really good at being mean.

There is no conceivable human you could put against him that he will not find a way to demean and bully.

"Oh look at this dopey guy with the pink hats. Why aren't you wearing your pink hat, Andrew? But seriously I'm glad that you liked my red hat and wanted to copy it, but not as tough. Not as tough."

"He walks around with signs that say 'Math'. Folks, no one knows math more than me, believe me. I've made more deals than this guy has ever even thought about, OK? I feel like I'm at the kid's table when I'm next to this guy."

"Who is this guy? This is the best the Democrats could do? Out of all these candidates, after Crooked Hillary (who we're going to investigate folks, believe me), the best they could do is some guy who got popular because of losers and hackers on the Internet? Hackers! Remember Russia? No collusion, but hackers. His fans are hackers."

"He's going to give everyone $1000/month he says. $1000/month. Do you know how much money that is? 30 TRILLION DOLLARS of government spending every month. Democrats have been ruining the deficit, worst in history, worst in history, and this guy in his pink hat is going to destroy this nation completely by trying to spend 30 TRILLION DOLLARS of government spending every single month."

"We love the Asians, folks, we love our Asians, and this guy goes around saying the American people want an Asian, right? That's what he says. *idiot voice* 'The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian who loves math' First of all I know math, better than anyone. I'm Donald Trump you think I'm not good with numbers? No one is better with numbers than Trump. But isn't that kind of racist, Andrew? Isn't it a little racist, the Asians and math thing? Sad, Andrew. Sad."

[workswithseed 2,201]

Here is the debate with Ben Shapiro. It should be live at 5 Pacific time

[Parliament 14,564]

I disagree with Mr. Yang's advocacy of the UBI very much, but his observations are dead on.  He definitely knows his stuff.

And Shapiro.  I always assumed he was another right wing hack, and in that vid he is not.  Very engaging.

[workswithseed 2,201]

Just now, Parliament said:

I disagree with Mr. Yang's advocacy of the UBI very much, but his observations are dead on.  He definitely knows his stuff.

And Shapiro.  I always assumed he was another right wing hack, and in that vid he is not.  Very engaging.

He is not a hack. I mean I'm biased, so take my word with a grain of salt. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,709]

UBI is inevitable at some level. We will soon have a large segment of the population that will be unemployable or with extremely few prospects. Even amazon can’t hire/outsource everyone to participate in their warehouse/delivery activities.

I suppose some entrepreneur could create an industry that will need millions of workers. But does anyone really believe that is likely? And even if that occured, it might only slow down the process.

[horncyclist 1,391]

UBI is inevitable at some level. We will soon have a large segment of the population that will be unemployable or with extremely few prospects. Even amazon can’t hire/outsource everyone to participate in their warehouse/delivery activities.
I suppose some entrepreneur could create an industry that will need millions of workers. But does anyone really believe that is likely? And even if that occured, it might only slow down the process.

The answer used to be that the service industry would fill in the gaps but even if that happens there will be nasty transition period. The truck drivers son might find other work. The truck driver whose done it for 20 years won't.

[bad_teammate 13,481]

Humans are going to be needed to perform labor, and instead of thinking about how little money we can give people to shut up and go away, we need to be making sure that our economy (both present and future) is designed with the well-being and happiness of the people in mind. It's really not complicated and UBI is increasingly coming across as a way to apologize for the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.

- Cut the work day/week
- Increase vacation
- Increase maternal/paternal leave
- Regulate automation in industries to protect jobs

[SKJ 1,317]

I just finished watching it. I'm not surprised that Shapiro was in agreement. It's hard to not be in agreement with actual common sense.

He's still the only politician that checks all the boxes for me.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,709]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 It's really not complicated and UBI is increasingly coming across as a way to apologize for the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.

Disagree that its an apology. It's basically a dividend as being a citizen or owner of the US.

One problem of the UBI is that it will be impossible to prevent employers from using it an offset for higher wages.  Say that a new teacher earns 45K. On Day 1 of an UBI of 12K/year, they basically are now earning 57K. Great income increase, but over time while the UBI may increase due to tied to CPI, the school district/state have less incentive to give the teacher a raise. They might even lower the salary of newly hired teacher because why not. 

Eventually in 15, 20 years, the teachers could potentially be earning less in purchasing power AND their taxes could be higher to help pay for the UBI.

And there is no way to prevent it, nor should the govt try. You could make it illegal to lower someone's salary because of the UBI but there would be easy ways around that.

[SKJ 1,317]

I think that the coming changes in capitalism will be good ones if the nation, and its corporations, will just accept the changes. 

Human-centered capitalism will hopefully bring about changes to the thought processes of everyone in this country.

I think businesses should, at some point, start to understand that if everyone is broke, no one buys shit. 

Yang wants to change the focus of capitalism, which is something that needs to happen since there is an inherent cruelty in it that should be weeded out.

Yes, businesses could start acting as if the dividend was a wage offset, and they'd probably try, seeing as how they are mostly morally bankrupt entities. If course, the government could also become more involved in pay structures if that's the case, since regulation is the only answer to corporate overreach.

Corporations are going to then complain of regulation, even though they would have caused, yet again, the need for it.

That's the pessimistic view.

Of course, if corporations take the stakeholder view, and use metrics such as triple bottom line, and actually become good corporate citizens, things don't have to be that way.

The people could always just revolt and kill their corporate masters. I'd be down for that.

[SKJ 1,317]

By the way

 

[SKJ 1,317]

Here's the whole thing

. It's long, but he's so sharp, it doesn't seem like it. Amazing guy.

[Dolemite 143]

Is it awesome? Yes.

 

 

[pyrohornIII 4,845]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/14/opinions/greatest-economic-transformation-andrew-yang/

 

Quote

Andrew Yang: We're undergoing the greatest economic transformation in our history

By Andrew Yang

Updated 8:12 PM ET, Sun April 14, 2019

CNN)I never thought I'd run for president. My parents were immigrants to this country -- and leader of the free world was not on the list of careers presented to me as a skinny Asian kid growing up in upstate New York.

Instead, I became a lawyer for five unhappy months and then an entrepreneur. In 2011, I started a nonprofit organization, Venture for America, to help bring talented young entrepreneurs to create thousands of jobs in Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Birmingham, Baltimore and other cities around the country. I chose those cities because there I experienced the aftermath of automation and witnessed the devastating effect it had on people's lives.

And then Donald Trump became President.

 

For Americans who are still trying to figure out why Trump is President, the answer is simple -- we automated away millions of manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, and Trump spoke directly to the fear and anger of those voters. He promised them that he would restore those jobs -- a promise on which he has notably failed to deliver. Here's the reality, though: The financial crisis of 2008 brought our 14 million manufacturing jobs (itself a low plateau from the 17 million in 2000) down to 11.4 million, and 10 years of expansion has only brought us back up to 12.8 million.

But what happened to manufacturing workers will soon happen to retail workers, call center workers, fast food workers, truck drivers and others, as the next Industrial Revolution takes hold of our economy. Bain, a leading consulting firm, projects automation will disrupt jobs at about three times the rate of the Second Industrial Revolution, which sparked thousands of strikes and mass riots at the turn of the 20th century.

 

 

 

If you doubt that this is already happening, consider that America's labor participation rate (the ratio of people who are working compared to the total population aged 16 and over) today has fallen to 63%, about the same level as Ecuador and Costa Rica. In the US, almost one out of five prime, working age men have not worked in the past year, and our life expectancy has declined for the past three years, in part due to surges in drug overdoses and suicides. This is before a projected 33% of American malls and retail stores may be forced to shutter their doors, and it might not be long before truck drivers are replaced with self-driving trucks.

 

2020 candidate says his universal basic income plan would be a 'game changer' for Americans

The challenge for the Democratic Party is to solve the problems that got Trump elected. However, when I went to Washington in 2017 to meet with lawmakers on this issue, no one wanted to touch automation and the changing state of our economy.

But here's the reality: We are undergoing the greatest economic transformation in our history, and we are dealing with it by pretending nothing is happening. I have two young children, and I have no intention of leaving the country in shambles for them.

We need to wake up to the fact that it is not immigrants who are causing economic dislocations. It is technology and an evolving economy that is pushing more and more Americans to the sidelines.

 

We must reformat our economy to work for Americans around the country. My plan consists of three major pillars: First, I would offer a freedom dividend -- or a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for every American adult starting at the age of 18. Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King Jr. and Milton Friedman were all for this idea. This would create over two million new jobs and ease the transition of an evolving economy for tens of millions of Americans. It would be paid for by a new tax that falls most heavily on the big winners of artificial intelligence and robotics, such as Amazon, Google, Facebook and Uber.

 

Fewer millennials are making it into the middle class

Second, I would introduce Medicare for All. We must separate access to quality health care from one's employment -- especially given that 94% of new jobs created from 2005 to 2015 were temporary, contract, freelance and gig-economy jobs that do not necessarily include quality benefits. This would free up many Americans to pursue different opportunities and ensure those who are already employed under these increasingly common arrangements access to health insurance.

Third, I would encourage a human-centered capitalism. What good is a high GDP if some, or even many, Americans are left behind? We should instead measure our progress through our average health, childhood success, mental health, environmental quality, affordability and other metrics that would actually tell us how people are doing.

In other words, we need to build a trickle-up economy from our people, families and communities up. This is the only way to create a path to prosperity for most Americans during a time of unprecedented technological change.

 

This may seem like science fiction to you. But you are reading this on a supercomputer, Trump is our President and your local mall might have just closed. We are living in unprecedented times and must rise to these 21st century challenges.

 

So, why am I the right candidate to tackle this challenge?

I see these problems clear as day, and I am bold enough to propose solutions to fix them. This vision is attractive to people across the political spectrum, and since announcing my candidacy, our national "Yang Gang" has welcomed former Trump supporters, libertarians and progressives -- who all see that the path is not left or right, it's forward. More than 90,000 of these individuals have donated an average of $18 to our vision, and we are set to make the debate stage in June.

Trump is the symptom, not the problem. His solutions are to turn the clock backward, build the wall and bring old jobs back. I'm suggesting we do the opposite -- accelerate our economy and society and move us forward to solve the problems that got him there in the first place.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,481]

Wow! President Yang?

 

[SKJ 1,317]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Wow! President Yang?

 

One can only hope.

[SKJ 1,317]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Yang's CNN town hall

 

[Brian Fantana 6,856]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Wow! President Yang?

 

Too bad he'll never get the nomination because the DNC is a joke and Joe fucking idiot Biden is "next in line".

[WhatTheBuck 28,904]

Never served in the military, never held elected office. 

Pass. 

[SKJ 1,317]

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Never served in the military, never held elected office. 

Pass. 

And yet he's the only one talking about things that are literally at our doorstep, the actual causes of the Trump presidency, and solutions.

Sure, seems like a healthy opinion

[WhatTheBuck 28,904]

8 minutes ago, SKJ said:

And yet he's the only one talking about things that are literally at our doorstep, the actual causes of the Trump presidency, and solutions.

Sure, seems like a healthy opinion

Yeah, I read that CNN article above. The actual cause of the Trump presidency is jobs lost to automation. Well, there you go. There's your answer. That one thing.

There's not just one reason. I don't trust anyone offering simple explanations for complex problems. I also saw him speak for the first time yesterday. He has all the charisma of a mollusk. He has no chance. 

[SKJ 1,317]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Yeah, I read that CNN article above. The actual cause of the Trump presidency is jobs lost to automation. Well, there you go. There's your answer. That one thing.

There's not just one reason. I don't trust anyone offering simple explanations for complex problems. I also saw him speak for the first time yesterday. He has all the charisma of a mollusk. He has no chance. 

And that's why we're doomed

[bad_teammate 13,481]

 

[SKJ 1,317]

And, away we go...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/food/new-las-vegas-strip-bar-features-robot-bartenders-video/amp/

[bad_teammate 13,481]

I said early in the Buttigieg thread that every time a candidate takes a shot at Hillary they get $10 from me

I'm a man of my word. Yang just got his ten-spot.

 

[SKJ 1,317]

That's pretty funny. Yang is definitely humourous.

[SKJ 1,317]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2019/05/22/what-if-presidential-hopeful-andrew-yang-is-right/amp/

[Biff Tannen 46,063]

13 minutes ago, SKJ said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2019/05/22/what-if-presidential-hopeful-andrew-yang-is-right/amp/

Must spread.  He's certainly forward thinking, in the vein of Musk, Bezos, et al.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Yeah I don’t think he’s nearly ready to be president but I think he’d be ideal to head up the agency mentioned in that article - the Office of Technology Assessment.

 

[SKJ 1,317]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Yeah I don’t think he’s nearly ready to be president but I think he’d be ideal to head up the agency mentioned in that article - the Office of Technology Assessment.

 

I'm not sure why he wouldn't be ready. If the only judge of readiness is a political past, all we'll get is not only more of the same, but two parties who don't even see the largest change in our history coming and won't be ready for it when it hits.

The U.S. postal service is testing self driving trucks to move the mail across the country. They're not even the first.

Like Yang says: we're in the third inning of the largest change, and no one's even talking about it.

[Dolemite 143]

#giant1000dollarbills

 

[workswithseed 2,201]

 

[SKJ 1,317]

4 hours ago, workswithseed said:

 

Amazing podcast.

He's truly the only person who gets it

[workswithseed 2,201]

I mean people complained that Pete was gonna go on Dave's platform. I don't understand how people can think he's anything but kind to let all sorts of people on.

[SKJ 1,317]

He really did well to get to the issues with Yang. Very little debate, no grandstanding or lecturing. 

He asked prudent questions and I never saw any interruption, other than to clarify his questions...

I wish Pete would. But most of all I wish Pete would just come up with some fucking policies. He's still just promising everything to everyone. Maybe that's why he won't go on that show. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,407]

On 4/9/2019 at 4:30 AM, SKJ said:

Of course, if corporations take the stakeholder view, and use metrics such as triple bottom line, and actually become good corporate citizens, things don't have to be that way.

Total focus on the bottom line is what got us in this mess. 

[SKJ 1,317]

16 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Total focus on the bottom line is what got us in this mess. 

Yes it is.

Triple bottom line changes the way companies see their role in the world

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,709]

I don't see why anyone would be against UBI if they took 5 minutes to listen.  Of course 5 minutes might be too much to ask of some.

The main UBI complaint, besides ignorant understanding of its funding, is the inevitable "guy sitting at home, playing video games, smoking pot" instead of doing something with his life. As asked by Rubin in that interview.  Sure, there are always a few people that will abuse a system. But you don't want to design an enforcement process or add requirements to prevent 1% of the recipients from abusing a system.  And of course that guy isn't abusing the UBI system. It would be his right to do nothing if that is how he wants to live his life.

And as far as the hardworking taxpayer annoyed at the guy at home earning their 12K/year and doing nothing.  so what.  Their govt money will flow into Game Stop, their dealer or whatever. If someone's ambitions are filled with a 12K salary, is that someone you want to see waiting on your at a restaurant. It's worth it to direct that person to the sidelines.  Let them move to small town America in their doublewide to never be heard of again. That would make everyone happy.

[Hank Kingsley 21,599]

7 hours ago, SKJ said:

He really did well to get to the issues with Yang. Very little debate, no grandstanding or lecturing. 

He asked prudent questions and I never saw any interruption, other than to clarify his questions...

I wish Pete would. But most of all I wish Pete would just come up with some fucking policies. He's still just promising everything to everyone. Maybe that's why he won't go on that show. 

https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

[bad_teammate 13,481]

UBI is a good idea. Yang's version is bad because it means tests in the wrong direction and seems to ensure that the only people who get it are the ones who don't need it.

[Todd Gack 448]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

UBI is a good idea. Yang's version is bad because it means tests in the wrong direction and seems to ensure that the only people who get it are the ones who don't need it.

Can you elaborate on this?  I've heard him say there is no means testing and it's a universal dividend for all above 18.  The only catch is for those already receiving govt assistance, in that they won't have the 1K on top of their current govt check. They'll need to choose to stand pat with what they've got or opt in and get the 1k unconditional with no oversight or income verification.  And the super rich can check a box and choose to donate their check to a charity. 

[bad_teammate 13,481]

8 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

The only catch is for those already receiving govt assistance, in that they won't have the 1K on top of their current govt check.

The general means test is that you don't get something if you're too rich, but Yang's UBI is the wrong direction: You don't get it if you're too poor.

It's very, very stupid.

Furthermore, limiting the idea of "receiving government assistance" to only the assistance provided to the poor is yet another anti-poor issue with Yang's UBI scheme. What about military contractors whose entire livelihood is taxpayer money? What about income from firms who survived because of bailouts? What about income from businesses that utilize government infrastructure projects (oops, all of them) or those who used government loans/grants to start or grow?

UBI can be a good idea. Andrew Yang's UBI is garbage. But he's a Silicon Valley guy, so that's kind of how that whole thing goes with that sort of person.

Quote

And the super rich can check a box and choose to donate their check to a charity. 

This is a gimmick and a joke.

[Todd Gack 448]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The general means test is that you don't get something if you're too rich, but Yang's UBI is the wrong direction: You don't get it if you're too poor.

It's very, very stupid.

Furthermore, limiting the idea of "receiving government assistance" to only the assistance provided to the poor is yet another anti-poor issue with Yang's UBI scheme. What about military contractors whose entire livelihood is taxpayer money? What about income from firms who survived because of bailouts? What about income from businesses that utilize government infrastructure projects (oops, all of them) or those who used government loans/grants to start or grow?

UBI can be a good idea. Andrew Yang's UBI is garbage. But he's a Silicon Valley guy, so that's kind of how that whole thing goes with that sort of person.

This is a gimmick and a joke.

So the objection is that it doesn't address extreme poverty and I would agree.  Those families receiving 2k, 3k, whatever per month in food stamps and housing stipends will be unaffected, but I don't think the point of his UBI is to fix that.  I imagine the very poor on the fringes will need more fundamental changes to our education, housing, and prison systems.  Real reform that will likely happen only when our current environment of scarcity is less of a factor on people's lives.  

I think Yang's idea is a great start.  He won't win, but starting the conversation and doing so in good faith is what has endeared him to so many people.

[bad_teammate 13,481]

1 minute ago, Todd Gack said:

So the objection is that it doesn't address extreme poverty and I would agree.  Those families receiving 2k, 3k, whatever per month in food stamps and housing stipends will be unaffected, but I don't think the point of his UBI is to fix that.

Neither do I. The purpose of a UBI is to provide a UNIVERSAL Basic Income. Yang's plan fails on the first word and does so for incomprehensible reasons. (I'm lying, the reasons are extremely understandable... Silicon Valley guys fucking hate the poor.)

The families who rely on government benefits will absolutely be affected, negatively. As everyone who isn't in poverty gets $12k/year, everything gets more expensive and the poor now have to compete in the market with even FEWER resources than they had before relative to their market competition.

Oh, and this scheme is funded by taxes paid by those poor people. Very cool.

Quote

 I imagine the very poor on the fringes will need more fundamental changes to our education, housing, and prison systems.  Real reform that will likely happen only when our current environment of scarcity is less of a factor on people's lives.  

 

So, in the meantime, why exclude them from the "U"BI?

Quote

I think Yang's idea is a great start.  He won't win, but starting the conversation and doing so in good faith is what has endeared him to so many people.

What about actually engaging in the conversation instead of just being happy about "starting" it? (This has been a big idea well before Yang, but whatever.)

Pete and Yang both operate on a level of participation trophy that's embarrassing to see from men who want to become president.

(Also, his messaging is a 100% lie. He makes it sound universal. It isn't.)

[Biff Tannen 46,063]

8 hours ago, SKJ said:

But most of all I wish Pete would just come up with some fucking policies

https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

Edited June 12, 2019 by Biff Tannen
Hank beat me to it

[Todd Gack 448]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Neither do I. The purpose of a UBI is to provide a UNIVERSAL Basic Income. Yang's plan fails on the first word and does so for incomprehensible reasons. (I'm lying, the reasons are extremely understandable... Silicon Valley guys fucking hate the poor.)

The families who rely on government benefits will absolutely be affected, negatively. As everyone who isn't in poverty gets $12k/year, everything gets more expensive and the poor now have to compete in the market with even FEWER resources than they had before relative to their market competition.

Oh, and this scheme is funded by taxes paid by those poor people. Very cool.

So, in the meantime, why exclude them from the "U"BI?

What about actually engaging in the conversation instead of just being happy about "starting" it? (This has been a big idea well before Yang, but whatever.)

Pete and Yang both operate on a level of participation trophy that's embarrassing to see from men who want to become president.

(Also, his messaging is a 100% lie. He makes it sound universal. It isn't.)

Points well taken.  Hard to call something universal if it excludes any significant portion of the population.

Not sure I agree on the idea of the poor funding it in any meaningful way.  It's a shitload of cash to distribute and a large portion will come from a value added tax on the biggest tech companies.  Can't imagine the poor will have any tax increase at all as a result of UBI.

And I agree on engaging in the conversation - I hope some of these issues are raised on the debate stage.

[bad_teammate 13,481]

"meaningful" doesn't really factor in here. 1 penny from a poor person going to the rich is wrong.

As for the funding, item #1 on Yang's list is cutting social welfare.

Also, he doesn't mention the cost.
There are 250M adults in America. At $1k/month, that's $250B per month and $3T per year.

From this section: "Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth."

Then it's a great idea to NOT give it to the poor, Andrew! WOO!

MATH!

This exact idea, eliminating social welfare in favor of just giving everyone a check (and then shrugging their shoulders when the poor continue to suffer), is what libertarians have been proposing for a couple of decades now.

#1 is inhuman

#2 is good

#3 is good

#4 is great

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,709]

Obviously the execution of any idea is always different from the initial idea but I don't gather that Yang is looking to give people the option over and over on whether they want UBI or other benefits.  And once you take the UBI, there's no going back.  Sure some people may remain on other welfare programs for a long time but so what.  

However as people turn 18, they wouldn't get the option.  They get UBI.  That's it.  Over time, fewer and fewer people will remain on the non-UBI plan.  You could even phase that out over time.  And Rubin stupidly asked Yang about NYC rent control but Yang ain't running for NYC mayor. That's not a federal program.

To me, the biggest potential problem with UBI, is that there is nothing that would stop Congress from later on tacking on welfare in addition to UBI. It would be impossible to prevent Congress from doing that.  I don't think a law could be written preventing other laws from being passed.  Another potential side effect is that it would lead to inflation especially with rent.

[bad_teammate 13,481]

$12k/year isn't enough for a person to live a productive and healthy life, especially if they have kids. You'll have kids starving and unable to get basic healthcare pretty much immediately. You'll have crime skyrocket. So yeah, fucking OF COURSE safety net welfare programs will come back.

I swear to god, Silicon Valley has the dumbest human beings alive. They are so up-their-asses about everything they have no clue how anything works or what consequences might follow or downstream effects or any historical grounding. All they have is gadgets. The fucking Juicero of economic justice solutions.

One of my favorite Silicon Valley Brain Genius ideas is Lyft accidentally creating a bus through INNOVATION and Bird scooters getting tossed into the ocean because they litter the sidewalks, beeping incessantly as they run out of charge.

[SKJ 1,317]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

"meaningful" doesn't really factor in here. 1 penny from a poor person going to the rich is wrong.

As for the funding, item #1 on Yang's list is cutting social welfare.

Also, he doesn't mention the cost.
There are 250M adults in America. At $1k/month, that's $250B per month and $3T per year.

From this section: "Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth."

Then it's a great idea to NOT give it to the poor, Andrew! WOO!

MATH!

This exact idea, eliminating social welfare in favor of just giving everyone a check (and then shrugging their shoulders when the poor continue to suffer), is what libertarians have been proposing for a couple of decades now.

#1 is inhuman

#2 is good

#3 is good

#4 is great

I see that you didn't listen to that podcast. You're a bit misinformed.