Andrew Yang Dems only shot

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

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.

HoustonHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

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.

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".

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

2001400ex said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

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.

HoustonHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

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.

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.