Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Andrew Yang Dems only shot
Comments
-
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit. -
Yes, i don't like those anecdote either.ramenduck said:
I listened to him on the JRE. He lost me early when he did the politician thing and said "you know, I met with a trucker named Terrance in Davenport, Iowa, and he said..." He did it a few more times. As a rule, I'm skeptical of all these town hall anecdotes.DerekJohnson said:
I listened to him for over two hours. Yang is not a moron.HoustonHusky said:Great...lets push the guy to the Left of Pocahontas but to the right of Sanders. That will work...
The guy is a moron...according to him (https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/), automation has eliminated 3MM jobs (yet the unemployment rate is at historic lows) so the answer is give everyone free money. Its an unaffordable solution in search of a might-maybe problem decades upon decades out from now, but ok! And his solution to pay for this $2-$3 trillion a year in additional spending is to try and tax companies that automate...I'm sure that won't drive them out of the country which will really help the tax base...
God what a group of fucktards the left has to choose from when somebody thinks this guy makes the most sense. Howard Shultz may be the only sane Democrat left (a sad commentary on all), and look where that is getting him and the party...
Joe also never challenged him on how the economy would adjust upward for everyone's new $12,000 salary. -
What British accent?HoustonHusky said:
He's a pretty big moron if he believes anything he is actually saying...and apparently has trouble with math if he doesn't see how his UBI matches up with revenue generation. Best part about it is that he's also pushing it via a VAT, which is basically the most regressive way possible to raise revenues.DerekJohnson said:
I listened to him for over two hours. Yang is not a moron.HoustonHusky said:Great...lets push the guy to the Left of Pocahontas but to the right of Sanders. That will work...
The guy is a moron...according to him (https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/), automation has eliminated 3MM jobs (yet the unemployment rate is at historic lows) so the answer is give everyone free money. Its an unaffordable solution in search of a might-maybe problem decades upon decades out from now, but ok! And his solution to pay for this $2-$3 trillion a year in additional spending is to try and tax companies that automate...I'm sure that won't drive them out of the country which will really help the tax base...
God what a group of fucktards the left has to choose from when somebody thinks this guy makes the most sense. Howard Shultz may be the only sane Democrat left (a sad commentary on all), and look where that is getting him and the party...
Goes with another favorite saying I have...just because somebody says something with a British accent it doesn't mean what they are saying is correct. Its amazing how people get influenced by how something is said over what is actually said.
This guy is extremely passionate and pretty eloquent, but he's a fucking moron when it comes to economics...he's crazy passionate about UBI to the point its a religion to him. He's convinced its the future, and every piece of data he sees validates it and any contrary data he sees he discounts, and what doesn't add up he make shit up to fill in (UBI will decrease prison population saving hundreds of billions, it won't impact people's desire to work, etc).
But its free shite so he'll fit in nicely in the primaries, and least until the Left realizes his program actually screws the poor more than any policy the left think Trump could ever propose in their nightmares would (his UBI factors in current benefits, so poor won't actually get much if any money, just everyone else will, and then those poor will suddenly be paying 10% higher on everything they spend money on via the VAT tax).
Don't think he'll make it far enough in the primaries for that to come out though, and if it does it will just evolve out to a bigger handout program... -
If you can't see that he's hoping to pander to that voting block, I can't help yousalemcoog said:Sounds like it might be over for Andrew Yang
-
This is a ticket you can trust to always get behind you!Pitchfork51 said:Universal Breast Implants.
#Throbber (and Bitchfork) 2020 -
Isn't UBI when it hurts where I pee?
-
Ubi is his hook to get his name in the mix. Let's say he won. It would be Trump's wall. Long ways to go to see it a reality.HoustonHusky said:
Listened to most of it as well...it’s a religion to the guy. Liked how contrary to all known information on the subject he went on a long monologue of how UBI will help low birth rates before Joe called him out on it.ramenduck said:
I listened to him on the JRE. He lost me early when he did the politician thing and said "you know, I met with a trucker named Terrance in Davenport, Iowa, and he said..." He did it a few more times. As a rule, I'm skeptical of all these town hall anecdotes.DerekJohnson said:
I listened to him for over two hours. Yang is not a moron.HoustonHusky said:Great...lets push the guy to the Left of Pocahontas but to the right of Sanders. That will work...
The guy is a moron...according to him (https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/), automation has eliminated 3MM jobs (yet the unemployment rate is at historic lows) so the answer is give everyone free money. Its an unaffordable solution in search of a might-maybe problem decades upon decades out from now, but ok! And his solution to pay for this $2-$3 trillion a year in additional spending is to try and tax companies that automate...I'm sure that won't drive them out of the country which will really help the tax base...
God what a group of fucktards the left has to choose from when somebody thinks this guy makes the most sense. Howard Shultz may be the only sane Democrat left (a sad commentary on all), and look where that is getting him and the party...
Joe also never challenged him on how the economy would adjust upward for everyone's new $12,000 salary.
Reminded me of the random crazy guy most people know who started taking some herbal supplement and can’t shut up telling you about all the serious problems they had before they started taking it, how it “fixed” everything wrong in their life, and how you just need to start taking it too... -
None...the guy is eloquent, but he's basically saying the economic equivalent of the earth is flat. The way he says it sounds great, but if you ignore the eloquence of how he says it and just look at the numbers behind what he says its complete and utter bullshit. My point was that for some reason people fall for this time of stuff all the time with consultants with British accents.DerekJohnson said:
What British accent?HoustonHusky said:
He's a pretty big moron if he believes anything he is actually saying...and apparently has trouble with math if he doesn't see how his UBI matches up with revenue generation. Best part about it is that he's also pushing it via a VAT, which is basically the most regressive way possible to raise revenues.DerekJohnson said:
I listened to him for over two hours. Yang is not a moron.HoustonHusky said:Great...lets push the guy to the Left of Pocahontas but to the right of Sanders. That will work...
The guy is a moron...according to him (https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/), automation has eliminated 3MM jobs (yet the unemployment rate is at historic lows) so the answer is give everyone free money. Its an unaffordable solution in search of a might-maybe problem decades upon decades out from now, but ok! And his solution to pay for this $2-$3 trillion a year in additional spending is to try and tax companies that automate...I'm sure that won't drive them out of the country which will really help the tax base...
God what a group of fucktards the left has to choose from when somebody thinks this guy makes the most sense. Howard Shultz may be the only sane Democrat left (a sad commentary on all), and look where that is getting him and the party...
Goes with another favorite saying I have...just because somebody says something with a British accent it doesn't mean what they are saying is correct. Its amazing how people get influenced by how something is said over what is actually said.
This guy is extremely passionate and pretty eloquent, but he's a fucking moron when it comes to economics...he's crazy passionate about UBI to the point its a religion to him. He's convinced its the future, and every piece of data he sees validates it and any contrary data he sees he discounts, and what doesn't add up he make shit up to fill in (UBI will decrease prison population saving hundreds of billions, it won't impact people's desire to work, etc).
But its free shite so he'll fit in nicely in the primaries, and least until the Left realizes his program actually screws the poor more than any policy the left think Trump could ever propose in their nightmares would (his UBI factors in current benefits, so poor won't actually get much if any money, just everyone else will, and then those poor will suddenly be paying 10% higher on everything they spend money on via the VAT tax).
Don't think he'll make it far enough in the primaries for that to come out though, and if it does it will just evolve out to a bigger handout program...
The vegan comment was spot on.
UBI sounds great, but his numbers on funding it are bogus, his soft savings/benefits (prison, birth rates, drug use decrease, etc.) are all completely made up (and contrary to the few studies/places that have tried it), he even admits it won't solve the problem he's trying to solve (i.e. its not enough to live on, and won't undo the economic loss of somebody getting outplaced but it will make them "feel" a little better). And the big thing is if you look at the nuts and bolts of what he is actually proposing it is basically a big wealth transfer from the the poorest of society to the middle class and rich which will never happen, which means it will become an even bigger handout when actually implemented. Its also nothing like what Milton Friedman talked about (which I more agree with in principle but still don't think it would ever work in practice).
But other than that its a grand idea...
-
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month. -
Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
-
Pitchfork51 said:
Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious. -
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
-
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality. -
The problem with UBI is the same problem with every seemingly decent government poverty fix, it will never be enough. Having a minimum wage was a great idea and is needed, but no matter where you set it people will be crying and picketing for it to be raised. If UBI is ever instituted it will immediately be too low, no matter how high it starts at.UW_Doog_Bot said:
While I don't subscribe to UBI being a panacea I think it is far more efficient and carries a lot less negatives than the current Welfare State and Bureaucracy we have in place. I think it's also probably better for the people receiving UBI than the current entrenched system. We are already spending the money. It might as well go into the pockets of the people we are spending it on.HoustonHusky said:
Listened to most of it as well...it’s a religion to the guy. Liked how contrary to all known information on the subject he went on a long monologue of how UBI will help low birth rates before Joe called him out on it.ramenduck said:
I listened to him on the JRE. He lost me early when he did the politician thing and said "you know, I met with a trucker named Terrance in Davenport, Iowa, and he said..." He did it a few more times. As a rule, I'm skeptical of all these town hall anecdotes.DerekJohnson said:
I listened to him for over two hours. Yang is not a moron.HoustonHusky said:Great...lets push the guy to the Left of Pocahontas but to the right of Sanders. That will work...
The guy is a moron...according to him (https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/), automation has eliminated 3MM jobs (yet the unemployment rate is at historic lows) so the answer is give everyone free money. Its an unaffordable solution in search of a might-maybe problem decades upon decades out from now, but ok! And his solution to pay for this $2-$3 trillion a year in additional spending is to try and tax companies that automate...I'm sure that won't drive them out of the country which will really help the tax base...
God what a group of fucktards the left has to choose from when somebody thinks this guy makes the most sense. Howard Shultz may be the only sane Democrat left (a sad commentary on all), and look where that is getting him and the party...
Joe also never challenged him on how the economy would adjust upward for everyone's new $12,000 salary.
Reminded me of the random crazy guy most people know who started taking some herbal supplement and can’t shut up telling you about all the serious problems they had before they started taking it, how it “fixed” everything wrong in their life, and how you just need to start taking it too...
I'm glad it's at least made it this far into the realm of political discussion. Hopefully, the idea continues to become more investigated.
And of course, these things can never be lowered, only increased. -
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it.
-
How is that much different from the current problem of handouts and transfers? Also, I would eliminate minimum wage, especially with a UBI, but that is another convo.HillsboroDuck said:
The problem with UBI is the same problem with every seemingly decent government poverty fix, it will never be enough. Having a minimum wage was a great idea and is needed, but no matter where you set it people will be crying and picketing for it to be raised. If UBI is ever instituted it will immediately be too low, no matter how high it starts at.UW_Doog_Bot said:
While I don't subscribe to UBI being a panacea I think it is far more efficient and carries a lot less negatives than the current Welfare State and Bureaucracy we have in place. I think it's also probably better for the people receiving UBI than the current entrenched system. We are already spending the money. It might as well go into the pockets of the people we are spending it on.HoustonHusky said:
Listened to most of it as well...it’s a religion to the guy. Liked how contrary to all known information on the subject he went on a long monologue of how UBI will help low birth rates before Joe called him out on it.ramenduck said:
I listened to him on the JRE. He lost me early when he did the politician thing and said "you know, I met with a trucker named Terrance in Davenport, Iowa, and he said..." He did it a few more times. As a rule, I'm skeptical of all these town hall anecdotes.DerekJohnson said:
I listened to him for over two hours. Yang is not a moron.HoustonHusky said:Great...lets push the guy to the Left of Pocahontas but to the right of Sanders. That will work...
The guy is a moron...according to him (https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/), automation has eliminated 3MM jobs (yet the unemployment rate is at historic lows) so the answer is give everyone free money. Its an unaffordable solution in search of a might-maybe problem decades upon decades out from now, but ok! And his solution to pay for this $2-$3 trillion a year in additional spending is to try and tax companies that automate...I'm sure that won't drive them out of the country which will really help the tax base...
God what a group of fucktards the left has to choose from when somebody thinks this guy makes the most sense. Howard Shultz may be the only sane Democrat left (a sad commentary on all), and look where that is getting him and the party...
Joe also never challenged him on how the economy would adjust upward for everyone's new $12,000 salary.
Reminded me of the random crazy guy most people know who started taking some herbal supplement and can’t shut up telling you about all the serious problems they had before they started taking it, how it “fixed” everything wrong in their life, and how you just need to start taking it too...
I'm glad it's at least made it this far into the realm of political discussion. Hopefully, the idea continues to become more investigated.
And of course, these things can never be lowered, only increased. -
When you take Medicare and social security out of welfare. Because they aren't replacing those with UBI. We really only spend like $150-$200 billion on food stamps and section 8 and shit. That's not minutia. That's a huge difference from your number.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it. -
Not saying it's much different at all, just the opposite. I'm saying it's the fatal flaw of all of them.UW_Doog_Bot said:
How is that much different from the current problem of handouts and transfers? Also, I would eliminate minimum wage, especially with a UBI, but that is another convo.HillsboroDuck said:
The problem with UBI is the same problem with every seemingly decent government poverty fix, it will never be enough. Having a minimum wage was a great idea and is needed, but no matter where you set it people will be crying and picketing for it to be raised. If UBI is ever instituted it will immediately be too low, no matter how high it starts at.UW_Doog_Bot said:
While I don't subscribe to UBI being a panacea I think it is far more efficient and carries a lot less negatives than the current Welfare State and Bureaucracy we have in place. I think it's also probably better for the people receiving UBI than the current entrenched system. We are already spending the money. It might as well go into the pockets of the people we are spending it on.HoustonHusky said:
Listened to most of it as well...it’s a religion to the guy. Liked how contrary to all known information on the subject he went on a long monologue of how UBI will help low birth rates before Joe called him out on it.ramenduck said:
I listened to him on the JRE. He lost me early when he did the politician thing and said "you know, I met with a trucker named Terrance in Davenport, Iowa, and he said..." He did it a few more times. As a rule, I'm skeptical of all these town hall anecdotes.DerekJohnson said:
I listened to him for over two hours. Yang is not a moron.HoustonHusky said:Great...lets push the guy to the Left of Pocahontas but to the right of Sanders. That will work...
The guy is a moron...according to him (https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/), automation has eliminated 3MM jobs (yet the unemployment rate is at historic lows) so the answer is give everyone free money. Its an unaffordable solution in search of a might-maybe problem decades upon decades out from now, but ok! And his solution to pay for this $2-$3 trillion a year in additional spending is to try and tax companies that automate...I'm sure that won't drive them out of the country which will really help the tax base...
God what a group of fucktards the left has to choose from when somebody thinks this guy makes the most sense. Howard Shultz may be the only sane Democrat left (a sad commentary on all), and look where that is getting him and the party...
Joe also never challenged him on how the economy would adjust upward for everyone's new $12,000 salary.
Reminded me of the random crazy guy most people know who started taking some herbal supplement and can’t shut up telling you about all the serious problems they had before they started taking it, how it “fixed” everything wrong in their life, and how you just need to start taking it too...
I'm glad it's at least made it this far into the realm of political discussion. Hopefully, the idea continues to become more investigated.
And of course, these things can never be lowered, only increased. -
Thanks for making my point for me! Notice I mentioned double counting. Tell me, what's the difference between a SS check and a UBI check? You can call it whatever you like if it makes your socialist branding feel more comfortable.2001400ex said:
When you take Medicare and social security out of welfare. Because they aren't replacing those with UBI. We really only spend like $150-$200 billion on food stamps and section 8 and shit. That's not minutia. That's a huge difference from your number.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it.
Why is the socialist brigade objecting to social security for all?
-
I'm not a fan of UBI. And I have never advocated for it. But SS is vastly different as it's a product of you prior income. And the number of years you pay in. Politicians aren't getting rid of that in our lifetime.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Thanks for making my point for me! Notice I mentioned double counting. Tell me, what's the difference between a SS check and a UBI check? You can call it whatever you like if it makes your socialist branding feel more comfortable.2001400ex said:
When you take Medicare and social security out of welfare. Because they aren't replacing those with UBI. We really only spend like $150-$200 billion on food stamps and section 8 and shit. That's not minutia. That's a huge difference from your number.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it.
Why is the socialist brigade objecting to social security for all? -
Sure, except that if you have UBI it replaces a whole lot of SS payments and/or supplements them. Hence, it's a reasonable assumption that you count a portion of what we spend on SS as part of what would fund UBI. As I've said, UBI is a REPLACEMENT for a whole lot of expenditures, not additional expenditure.2001400ex said:
I'm not a fan of UBI. And I have never advocated for it. But SS is vastly different as it's a product of you prior income. And the number of years you pay in. Politicians aren't getting rid of that in our lifetime.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Thanks for making my point for me! Notice I mentioned double counting. Tell me, what's the difference between a SS check and a UBI check? You can call it whatever you like if it makes your socialist branding feel more comfortable.2001400ex said:
When you take Medicare and social security out of welfare. Because they aren't replacing those with UBI. We really only spend like $150-$200 billion on food stamps and section 8 and shit. That's not minutia. That's a huge difference from your number.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it.
Why is the socialist brigade objecting to social security for all?
The real question is why are you comfortable giving people housing aid, food stamps, etc. but not just giving them some money to spend as they see fit? -
Hondo is never in favor of anything he shills for here.
-
Well what you state there is less than $200 billion in housing aid, food stamps, etc. And it's geared towards providing housing and food to kids. Yes there's fraud and yes some is wasted and yes some idiots buy lobster with food stamps. But by and large, the way the system is, that waste is minimal and the funds are used for their purpose.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, except that if you have UBI it replaces a whole lot of SS payments and/or supplements them. Hence, it's a reasonable assumption that you count a portion of what we spend on SS as part of what would fund UBI. As I've said, UBI is a REPLACEMENT for a whole lot of expenditures, not additional expenditure.2001400ex said:
I'm not a fan of UBI. And I have never advocated for it. But SS is vastly different as it's a product of you prior income. And the number of years you pay in. Politicians aren't getting rid of that in our lifetime.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Thanks for making my point for me! Notice I mentioned double counting. Tell me, what's the difference between a SS check and a UBI check? You can call it whatever you like if it makes your socialist branding feel more comfortable.2001400ex said:
When you take Medicare and social security out of welfare. Because they aren't replacing those with UBI. We really only spend like $150-$200 billion on food stamps and section 8 and shit. That's not minutia. That's a huge difference from your number.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it.
Why is the socialist brigade objecting to social security for all?
The real question is why are you comfortable giving people housing aid, food stamps, etc. but not just giving them some money to spend as they see fit?
And SS is based on what you've paid in. I didn't say I'm uncomfortable with UBI in any way. I said politicians aren't getting rid of SS so it's not really worth saying "what if". -
This is misdirection and at this point I'm convinced you are doing it willfully. Either that, or you really do need to read for comprehension.2001400ex said:
Well what you state there is less than $200 billion in housing aid, food stamps, etc. And it's geared towards providing housing and food to kids. Yes there's fraud and yes some is wasted and yes some idiots buy lobster with food stamps. But by and large, the way the system is, that waste is minimal and the funds are used for their purpose.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, except that if you have UBI it replaces a whole lot of SS payments and/or supplements them. Hence, it's a reasonable assumption that you count a portion of what we spend on SS as part of what would fund UBI. As I've said, UBI is a REPLACEMENT for a whole lot of expenditures, not additional expenditure.2001400ex said:
I'm not a fan of UBI. And I have never advocated for it. But SS is vastly different as it's a product of you prior income. And the number of years you pay in. Politicians aren't getting rid of that in our lifetime.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Thanks for making my point for me! Notice I mentioned double counting. Tell me, what's the difference between a SS check and a UBI check? You can call it whatever you like if it makes your socialist branding feel more comfortable.2001400ex said:
When you take Medicare and social security out of welfare. Because they aren't replacing those with UBI. We really only spend like $150-$200 billion on food stamps and section 8 and shit. That's not minutia. That's a huge difference from your number.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it.
Why is the socialist brigade objecting to social security for all?
The real question is why are you comfortable giving people housing aid, food stamps, etc. but not just giving them some money to spend as they see fit?
And SS is based on what you've paid in. I didn't say I'm uncomfortable with UBI in any way. I said politicians aren't getting rid of SS so it's not really worth saying "what if".
How many times can I explain replacement?
I really don't care what you want to call it for political branding necessity. SS for all, expansion of EIC, whatever you'd like. The point is, give people money and let them decide how to spend it, not shitty expensive government bought services.
You're uncomfortable letting poor people make those economic choices. No need to quibble about it. You think the state needs to do it for them because they aren't capable. -
I stated exactly what I stated and why. Politicians aren't replacing SS any time soon.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is misdirection and at this point I'm convinced you are doing it willfully. Either that, or you really do need to read for comprehension.2001400ex said:
Well what you state there is less than $200 billion in housing aid, food stamps, etc. And it's geared towards providing housing and food to kids. Yes there's fraud and yes some is wasted and yes some idiots buy lobster with food stamps. But by and large, the way the system is, that waste is minimal and the funds are used for their purpose.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, except that if you have UBI it replaces a whole lot of SS payments and/or supplements them. Hence, it's a reasonable assumption that you count a portion of what we spend on SS as part of what would fund UBI. As I've said, UBI is a REPLACEMENT for a whole lot of expenditures, not additional expenditure.2001400ex said:
I'm not a fan of UBI. And I have never advocated for it. But SS is vastly different as it's a product of you prior income. And the number of years you pay in. Politicians aren't getting rid of that in our lifetime.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Thanks for making my point for me! Notice I mentioned double counting. Tell me, what's the difference between a SS check and a UBI check? You can call it whatever you like if it makes your socialist branding feel more comfortable.2001400ex said:
When you take Medicare and social security out of welfare. Because they aren't replacing those with UBI. We really only spend like $150-$200 billion on food stamps and section 8 and shit. That's not minutia. That's a huge difference from your number.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it.
Why is the socialist brigade objecting to social security for all?
The real question is why are you comfortable giving people housing aid, food stamps, etc. but not just giving them some money to spend as they see fit?
And SS is based on what you've paid in. I didn't say I'm uncomfortable with UBI in any way. I said politicians aren't getting rid of SS so it's not really worth saying "what if".
How many times can I explain replacement?
I really don't care what you want to call it for political branding necessity. SS for all, expansion of EIC, whatever you'd like. The point is, give people money and let them decide how to spend it, not shitty expensive government bought services.
You're uncomfortable letting poor people make those economic choices. No need to quibble about it. You think the state needs to do it for them because they aren't capable.
And you just put a shit ton of words in my mouth. That's not what I think. But I do think our current programs do a better job of giving kids a chance at a decent life that UBI would. Period. -
The Throbber would need to do a deep dive just to make sure.pawz said:
No way those are real.DuckHHunterisafag said:
#realtittaysPurpleThrobber said:allpurpleallgold said:I didn’t even read what you wrote.
You'll be putty in the capable hands of 2024 and 2028 POTUS candidate for the GOP.
@PurpleThrobber, true ?!?!
Trust but verify.
-
I would vote for Yang if he changed his name.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Wang 2020
-
Wait until you see the hotties we roll out for cabinet posts.Swaye said:
This is a ticket you can trust to always get behind you!Pitchfork51 said:Universal Breast Implants.
#Throbber (and Bitchfork) 2020
-
He also said it would fix the birth rate which is BS too...that's part of his religion of UBI magically fixing all ills. He did not say he's eliminating food stamps, housing subsidies, and such...he specifically says you can get those and it deducts from your $1,000/month UBI. His website says as much as well. No clue how that reduces bloat in govt...can easily see how it would be abused (people double-dipping) and increase bloat because now you have another agency distributing money and you have to hire/pay people to track 2 types of benefits and try and reconcile how much you get of one based on the other.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Its a great religion if you can find someone to fund it and you aren't on the bottom rung of the economic food chain.
And yes, they are... -
Heavy goal post move. Keep school lunches for all I care. They are a prime example of how government bought services end up just being handouts for lobbies and special interests while the actual customers suffer. How else do you end up with PizzaHut considered a balanced meal?2001400ex said:
I stated exactly what I stated and why. Politicians aren't replacing SS any time soon.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is misdirection and at this point I'm convinced you are doing it willfully. Either that, or you really do need to read for comprehension.2001400ex said:
Well what you state there is less than $200 billion in housing aid, food stamps, etc. And it's geared towards providing housing and food to kids. Yes there's fraud and yes some is wasted and yes some idiots buy lobster with food stamps. But by and large, the way the system is, that waste is minimal and the funds are used for their purpose.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Sure, except that if you have UBI it replaces a whole lot of SS payments and/or supplements them. Hence, it's a reasonable assumption that you count a portion of what we spend on SS as part of what would fund UBI. As I've said, UBI is a REPLACEMENT for a whole lot of expenditures, not additional expenditure.2001400ex said:
I'm not a fan of UBI. And I have never advocated for it. But SS is vastly different as it's a product of you prior income. And the number of years you pay in. Politicians aren't getting rid of that in our lifetime.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Thanks for making my point for me! Notice I mentioned double counting. Tell me, what's the difference between a SS check and a UBI check? You can call it whatever you like if it makes your socialist branding feel more comfortable.2001400ex said:
When you take Medicare and social security out of welfare. Because they aren't replacing those with UBI. We really only spend like $150-$200 billion on food stamps and section 8 and shit. That's not minutia. That's a huge difference from your number.UW_Doog_Bot said:
I generally use economic data which says we spend roughly 10% of GDP on welfare programs of one sort or another once you start counting state and local. That would be about 2 trillion dollars. Conservatively I cut that number in half bc I'm sure there are parts that won't be easy to eliminate or would be double payment such as SS but which in my version would essentially be the same thing anyways.2001400ex said:
What are you including in that number for over a trillion dollars that would be replaced by UBI?UW_Doog_Bot said:
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.jecornel said:Pitchfork51 said:Honestly looking at the Dem candidates .... Hillary 2.0 may still be best bet.
The Democrats fucking suck. No one likes Republicans and yet the Dems still can't win.
Yang mentioned on JRE that it would reduce bloat in entitlement agencies. He was not advocating growing that part of government. He actually wants to reduce it. Yes of course he took components of Milton's idea. Few have an original idea.HoustonHusky said:
That's more of Milton Friedman's concept (and not Yang's)...Friedman's concept was eliminate all the govt agencies/handouts and just send people a check. Its much more efficient, but you'll also get a good chunk of those folks screwing up as well (usually if you are at that level your ability to handle finance on a monthly level isn't the best)...which will lead to a bunch of folks homeless/without food/etc.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Much like SS payments UBI shouldn't be meant to be your sole income and if it is you are probably going to live a fairly miserable life. We already spend more than a trillion dollars on welfare. Both sadly and stupidly, most of that probably goes into the hands of the people administrating the programs who are themselves, a special interest that manipulates our democracy through lobbying, with money provided by the public no less. I'd rather cut out the middle man and just cut a check to the bottom 10% of my neighbors and call it a day. Whether they spend it on bettering themselves, buying hash, or fucking off to Belize I don't really give a shit.sarktastic said:If y’all think China is gonna sit by idly while socialists pay lazy folks to sit on their asses in the United States, you’re delusional.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
Yang's concept is keep all those govt programs, and if your monthly benefits don't add up to $1,000/month than you pay them the difference in a check while giving everyone else who doesn't get govt handouts a $1,000/month.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Sure, people will screw up their UBI checks, the government already automatically screws up welfare by taking 81% off the top. I'd rather some poor SOB buy a bunch of 40's than the employees of the state use the money to fund a super PAC to lobby for a larger state. Meanwhile, there's also a whole host of people that would use that money to better themselves and become stable as well.
I can't stress this enough. We spend over a trillion fucking dollars. Why give it to the state and not the people it's purported to be for?
Is it the ideal system of things? Probably not but it's more realistically feasible given political reality.
It's an inexact number but a conservative estimate none-the-less to prevent people like you from attempting to bog down the conversation in minutia over exact spending numbers.
No matter how you want to cut it, the US spends a metric fuck-ton of money on a relatively limited population of people and generally has super inefficient results to show for it.
Why is the socialist brigade objecting to social security for all?
The real question is why are you comfortable giving people housing aid, food stamps, etc. but not just giving them some money to spend as they see fit?
And SS is based on what you've paid in. I didn't say I'm uncomfortable with UBI in any way. I said politicians aren't getting rid of SS so it's not really worth saying "what if".
How many times can I explain replacement?
I really don't care what you want to call it for political branding necessity. SS for all, expansion of EIC, whatever you'd like. The point is, give people money and let them decide how to spend it, not shitty expensive government bought services.
You're uncomfortable letting poor people make those economic choices. No need to quibble about it. You think the state needs to do it for them because they aren't capable.
And you just put a shit ton of words in my mouth. That's not what I think. But I do think our current programs do a better job of giving kids a chance at a decent life that UBI would. Period.
It's notable how quiet all of the supposed lib-left get when UBI gets brought up. Haven't heard much out of APAG, Hardlyclothed communist, HH, MariotaFS etc. other than the laughable "but how will we pay for it!"
