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.
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.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Watching Doog_Bot mentally pummel Hondo all the time is awesome.
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.
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.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re advocating for it right here in this thread, dumbass
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...
I listened to him for over two hours. Yang is not a moron.
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.
Joe also never challenged him on how the economy would adjust upward for everyone's new $12,000 salary.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
And of course, these things can never be lowered, only increased.
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.
Not saying it's much different at all, just the opposite. I'm saying it's the fatal flaw of all of them.
I tend to agree but I view UBI as a much lesser evil than the bloat and growth of state run welfare. There's an entire layer of middle-men, bureaucrats, and administrators who have a self interest in underserving their customers while inflating the costs and growing the state and it's powers.
I'd happily live in a world with no involuntary transfer payments but that isn't happening anytime soon. I'd be satisfied with transfers going to the people they are supposed to and not the state and its rent seeking cronies.
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.
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.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
El oh fucking el!
Dog Bot mops the floor with Hondo, Hondo looks around in a confused stupor.
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.
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.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!"
I didn't move any goalposts. I'm simply stating facts. I can't help that they are facts and it doesn't fit your narrative.
On the last part about how quiet "lib-leftys" get when UBI is brought up. I do chuckle. You think that everyone on one side has to fall in line with the rest. I hate to break it to you, but that's not how a lot of people work. The "con-right" on this board definitely falls in line with everything. Even the "classic liberal" falls in line with everything on the right. But those not there almost like think things through and don't just parrot the company line.
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.
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.
It's not as if it's much different of a concept from the earned income credit.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, the Dem party is atrocious.
Surprise! The economics guy is a fan of Friedman.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
El oh fucking el!
Dog Bot mops the floor with Hondo, Hondo looks around in a confused stupor.
It's clear the classic liberal doesn't even comprehend what I'm saying.
Comments
I'd happily live in a world with no involuntary transfer payments but that isn't happening anytime soon. I'd be satisfied with transfers going to the people they are supposed to and not the state and its rent seeking cronies.
Dog Bot mops the floor with Hondo, Hondo looks around in a confused stupor.
On the last part about how quiet "lib-leftys" get when UBI is brought up. I do chuckle. You think that everyone on one side has to fall in line with the rest. I hate to break it to you, but that's not how a lot of people work. The "con-right" on this board definitely falls in line with everything. Even the "classic liberal" falls in line with everything on the right. But those not there almost like think things through and don't just parrot the company line.