Jump to content
ag_NO_stic

Andrew Yang 2020?

Recommended Posts

"This Presidential Candidate Wants to Give Every Adult $1,000 a Month"

 

"Andrew Yang’s presidential platform is idiosyncratic. He’d like to fine companies that harass you with robocalls, force the NCAA to pay its college athletes, modernize voting so you can cast ballots from your cell phone, and create a system that ensures Americans have an income of at least $1,000 a month."

 

"Though no developed countries have a comprehensive universal basic income program yet, several, including Finland, are toying with it. The Scandinavian country launched a new social security trial in 2017, providing 2,000 randomly selected unemployed residents approximately $640 per month, tax-free. At about half the 55% the amount of Finland’s unemployment dividend, the allowance is barely enough to live on for individuals tasked with paying rent. Researchers say it is reducing recipients’ stress and adding to their happiness."

 

"Yang’s plan is a bit different, however. He intends to pay for it with a value-added tax, a consumption tax levied on goods at each stage of their production. “The big trap that America is in right now is that as artificial intelligence and autonomous cars and trucks take off, we’re going to see more and more work disappear and we’re not going to have new revenue to account for it,” he said. “The big winners are going to be the biggest tech companies like Amazon and Google and Facebook who are great at not paying a lot of taxes. So the way we pay for a universal basic income is by passing a value added tax which would get the American public a slice of every Amazon transaction and Google search.”

 

"“Inequality is a problem that is not going to go away in the next two or three decades,” says Faricy, the political science professor. “The more the American public sees inequality and wage stagnation not as a temporary blip, but as something that is a structural problem, I think that that these proposals like UBI will move from the fringe more towards the center as a viable policy option.”

 

http://time.com/5528621/andrew-yang-universal-basic-income/?utm_campaign=time&utm_medium=socialflowfb&utm_source=facebook.com&xid=time_socialflow_facebook&fbclid=IwAR2V_AQLp-lhpb5ceradI6onW4BAbpoN9irktGG9oa9RdxTesvsIfGBmvOU&fbclid=IwAR0n5WkSyDQSpSa7dZjCnLB0RZOMTJf9yJD6HlkGxgTUVbw5HLL6V02i7wQ

 

I have mixed feelings, but I LIKE that. If I didn't have mixed feelings, I would feel the candidate was not moderate enough. This is the first democratic candidate I haven't completely written off yet, and it's not for the "free" money. Y'a'll know my views on compromise, at least I hope you do: we don't get EVERYTHING we want and we all have to live together here. I don't LOVE the idea of this universal dividend if taxes are going to be all screwy, but it's not the worst idea I've ever heard, especially if it encourages welfare reform and the creation of new jobs. I like that this guy is thinking ahead on employment and thinking of potential solutions. It’s my understanding that universal basic income is actually a conservative economic idea, I know Alaska (I understand, a conservative state), has been doing oil dividend type things for awhile now.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know....

 

I have been thinking alot about the whole "robots" doing all the work concept for quite some time. Eventually the only individuals who will be needed at all are robotics developers and, even they, may not be needed way in the future when robots program themselves. (Scary huh?)

 

In that economy there will be no need for monetary motivation like we have now. Our system of who gets what, when, where, and how, will not be recognizable by today's standards. Resources will still be scarce but labor will be virtually free and the means of creating goods and services will bo so efficient as to be almost invisible to the consumer. 

 

We'll need to find methods of limiting consumption so that we do not deplete the world's resources faster than they can be refreshed. We'll need to severely limit reproduction. And the masses will still need a means of engaging their minds via recreation and creativity. 

 

That was waaaaay beyond the current topic of a guaranteed minimum income but my point is we have to begin the conversation of how to manage a world were humans do not have to work and the concept of a minimum income might be a segway into that conversation. My concerns regarding said income are...

          1. Who will pay for it.

          2. We must take care not to exacerbate the condition that we may already have wherein there is little motivation, beyond a better life than the subsistence level,  to be productive. In other words do we hand out checks to                     every low-life that bellies up to the trough or will this program only be available to those willing to toil?

 

For the most part I am hopelessly fiscally conservative and this is new ground for me to even consider yet another costly government program. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's obvious that we are necessarily headed that way. However, Scandanavia is light years ahead of us and even they aren't quite there yet. Don't forget to factor in American Exceptionalism and our ingrained fear of anything loosely labeled as Socialism (EEK!). I don't see anything of significance happening for at least two generations at best. We will probably collapse before we are willing to change the paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, MOHO said:

You know....

 

I have been thinking alot about the whole "robots" doing all the work concept for quite some time. Eventually the only individuals who will be needed at all are robotics developers and, even they, may not be needed way in the future when robots program themselves. (Scary huh?)

 

In that economy there will be no need for monetary motivation like we have now. Our system of who gets what, when, where, and how, will not be recognizable by today's standards. Resources will still be scarce but labor will be virtually free and the means of creating goods and services will bo so efficient as to be almost invisible to the consumer. 

 

We'll need to find methods of limiting consumption so that we do not deplete the world's resources faster than they can be refreshed. We'll need to severely limit reproduction. And the masses will still need a means of engaging their minds via recreation and creativity. 

 

That was waaaaay beyond the current topic of a guaranteed minimum income but my point is we have to begin the conversation of how to manage a world were humans do not have to work and the concept of a minimum income might be a segway into that conversation. My concerns regarding said income are...

          1. Who will pay for it.

          2. We must take care not to exacerbate the condition that we may already have wherein there is little motivation, beyond a better life than the subsistence level,  to be productive. In other words do we hand out checks to                     every low-life that bellies up to the trough or will this program only be available to those willing to toil?

 

For the most part I am hopelessly fiscally conservative and this is new ground for me to even consider yet another costly government program. 

 

I'm moderate, conservative leaning too!!! We have to consider how much we're wasting currently so that we can push for reform! The article is talking about maybe cutting other welfare subsidies. You highlighted some scary stuff to be thinking about for sure. One thing I liked is that his financial solution is not just "tax people" or specifically "tax the rich" as opposed to "value-added" tax.  This guy, like Trump, is a business man coming in without tons of prior experience. He mentions in the article that Trump paved the way for this and I like this guy WAY better! He's the first democrat that doesn't sound completely psycho!

 

30 minutes ago, florduh said:

I think it's obvious that we are necessarily headed that way. However, Scandanavia is light years ahead of us and even they aren't quite there yet. Don't forget to factor in American Exceptionalism and our ingrained fear of anything loosely labeled as Socialism (EEK!). I don't see anything of significance happening for at least two generations at best. We will probably collapse before we are willing to change the paradigm.

 

I'm not quite seeing your point. You know how vocal I am about taxes and being fiscally conservative, wouldn't it encourage you to know that I'm interested in this guy? First democrat I'd at least consider, though of course I'd want to look into his policies more in depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

He’d like to fine companies that harass you with robocalls, force the NCAA to pay its college athletes, modernize voting so you can cast ballots from your cell phone, and create a system that ensures Americans have an income of at least $1,000 a month.

Fining robocalls removes a minor annoyance, not revolutionary. Have the NCAA pay makes sense, ever since it gained media rights it has been making millions so make 'em share. 

 

The big question is UBI which I don't see as being a good thing. First being universal means every millionaire gets paid as much as your injured veterans would, it doesn't focus the money where it can do the most good. 

Second it would create a ton of freeloaders who would kick back and live it up. Rent a cheap one room apartment and play video games all day. Why have the stress of work when you don't have to? Welfare payments can have terms attached where you have to achieve certain goals to qualify, UBI doesn't. 

Third, all calculations I've seen say this is a terrible money vacuum that countries can't afford to implement. If a new source of funding could be found then it should be used to get debt under control and properly fund all existing programs. Just do the basic calculation, 300 million Americans times $1000 each... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, florduh said:

... We will probably collapse before we are willing to change the paradigm.

Yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Finland is "ending" its program (BBC).  Rather they're not expanding it and they're taking a wait and see attitude towards it so they can assess it.  From what I've read it has done a couple of things and that is the people on it have a better social outlook (ie. they're not miserable, frightened people, so it works as a safety net).  But it failed to created jobs or really stimulate the economy which is one of the things they said it would do (though this could be from the limited number of participants since 2000 people is really limited so I imagine this is why they need to look into local affects to see if anything really happened or if it fell flat).

 

     So is a universal income a bad idea?  Maybe.  Or maybe it's just not the right time for it.  It seems that this is the sort of idea for a more automated society (ala Star Trek).  

 

     Stopping robocallers?  Okay.

 

     Paying college athletes?  Probably.

 

     Voting on your cell?  Nope.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, florduh said:

We will probably collapse before we are willing to change the paradigm.

我很确定我的孙子孙女必须学习汉语作为第二语言。
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the basic income experiment in Finland proved not to solve the participants' unemployment. In fact, the results seem unexpectedly bad.

 

The experiment guaranteed a sum equivalent to basic unemployment benefit (560€/month) for the 2000 randomly chosen unemployed people forced to participate. What is more, unlike the normal unemployment benefit one would more or less lose upon finding a paying job, the participants' basic income was fully paid on top of any other earnings.

 

Result was a near-zero difference with the control group. The participants worked, on average, for 0.39 more days per year than the control group. 49.64 days vs. 49.25 days per year.

 

Getting employed would still impact their housing benefits, which is up to 320€/month, and various other smaller benefits as the basic income effectively just replaced one or two of the typical benefits. Still, I had hoped it would alleviate the dilemma of getting a job vs. losing your benefits more than it actually managed to.

 

The experiment would probably yield a very different result if there were zero or very few other benefits available, which usually is the idea when universal basic income is discussed, as it is meant to replace the complex welfare system riddled with traps and disincentives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 11:29 AM, ag_NO_stic said:

I have mixed feelings, but I LIKE that. If I didn't have mixed feelings, I would feel the candidate was not moderate enough. This is the first democratic candidate I haven't completely written off yet, and it's not for the "free" money. Y'a'll know my views on compromise, at least I hope you do: we don't get EVERYTHING we want and we all have to live together here. I don't LOVE the idea of this universal dividend if taxes are going to be all screwy, but it's not the worst idea I've ever heard, especially if it encourages welfare reform and the creation of new jobs. I like that this guy is thinking ahead on employment and thinking of potential solutions. It’s my understanding that universal basic income is actually a conservative economic idea, I know Alaska (I understand, a conservative state), has been doing oil dividend type things for awhile now.

 

Thoughts?

 

I ran into Yang too, and posted about this elsewhere. I actually like the idea of giving everyone $1000 a month. Because it's not a situation where working people are paying for non working people to jip the system, be lazy, or whatever. Everyone is treated like a share holder of the USA, as citizens. Technology fronts a lot of the bill, above and beyond the existing budgets. It spreads the money evenly out to every existing community. Which then can trickle up, rather than previous "trickle down" economic strategies. And the money will give people the ability to spend more on buying things, and passing the money around. Hell, even if people are saving it, eventually those savings will go into new homes, cars, boats, and other big purchases that they are saving for. 

 

I'm looking at it thinking, I have four adults in the house hold. That's $4,000 a month contributing to household expenses. Everyone could use their work money to develop a handsome savings month by month, year by year. With the dividend covering monthly housing and food expenses. Seriously, if it came down to Trump verse Yang, I have no reservations about voting for Yang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 10:29 AM, ag_NO_stic said:

"This Presidential Candidate Wants to Give Every Adult $1,000 a Month"

 

"Andrew Yang’s presidential platform is idiosyncratic. He’d like to fine companies that harass you with robocalls, force the NCAA to pay its college athletes, modernize voting so you can cast ballots from your cell phone, and create a system that ensures Americans have an income of at least $1,000 a month."

 

"Though no developed countries have a comprehensive universal basic income program yet, several, including Finland, are toying with it. The Scandinavian country launched a new social security trial in 2017, providing 2,000 randomly selected unemployed residents approximately $640 per month, tax-free. At about half the 55% the amount of Finland’s unemployment dividend, the allowance is barely enough to live on for individuals tasked with paying rent. Researchers say it is reducing recipients’ stress and adding to their happiness."

 

"Yang’s plan is a bit different, however. He intends to pay for it with a value-added tax, a consumption tax levied on goods at each stage of their production. “The big trap that America is in right now is that as artificial intelligence and autonomous cars and trucks take off, we’re going to see more and more work disappear and we’re not going to have new revenue to account for it,” he said. “The big winners are going to be the biggest tech companies like Amazon and Google and Facebook who are great at not paying a lot of taxes. So the way we pay for a universal basic income is by passing a value added tax which would get the American public a slice of every Amazon transaction and Google search.”

 

"“Inequality is a problem that is not going to go away in the next two or three decades,” says Faricy, the political science professor. “The more the American public sees inequality and wage stagnation not as a temporary blip, but as something that is a structural problem, I think that that these proposals like UBI will move from the fringe more towards the center as a viable policy option.”

 

http://time.com/5528621/andrew-yang-universal-basic-income/?utm_campaign=time&utm_medium=socialflowfb&utm_source=facebook.com&xid=time_socialflow_facebook&fbclid=IwAR2V_AQLp-lhpb5ceradI6onW4BAbpoN9irktGG9oa9RdxTesvsIfGBmvOU&fbclid=IwAR0n5WkSyDQSpSa7dZjCnLB0RZOMTJf9yJD6HlkGxgTUVbw5HLL6V02i7wQ

 

I have mixed feelings, but I LIKE that. If I didn't have mixed feelings, I would feel the candidate was not moderate enough. This is the first democratic candidate I haven't completely written off yet, and it's not for the "free" money. Y'a'll know my views on compromise, at least I hope you do: we don't get EVERYTHING we want and we all have to live together here. I don't LOVE the idea of this universal dividend if taxes are going to be all screwy, but it's not the worst idea I've ever heard, especially if it encourages welfare reform and the creation of new jobs. I like that this guy is thinking ahead on employment and thinking of potential solutions. It’s my understanding that universal basic income is actually a conservative economic idea, I know Alaska (I understand, a conservative state), has been doing oil dividend type things for awhile now.

 

Thoughts?

 

Candidates for office often come up with big ideas, that will pay people to vote for them. Vote for me and I’ll give you free universal health care, or a guaranteed monthly Income,or I’ll build a wall to protect our boarders.

 

In order for campaign promises to become a reality they have to get through Congress, and that is no small task.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I ran into Yang too, and posted about this elsewhere. I actually like the idea of giving everyone $1000 a month. Because it's not a situation where working people are paying for non working people to jip the system, be lazy, or whatever. Everyone is treated like a share holder of the USA, as citizens. Technology fronts a lot of the bill, above and beyond the existing budgets. It spreads the money evenly out to every existing community. Which then can trickle up, rather than previous "trickle down" economic strategies. And the money will give people the ability to spend more on buying things, and passing the money around. Hell, even if people are saving it, eventually those savings will go into new homes, cars, boats, and other big purchases that they are saving for. 

 

I'm looking at it thinking, I have four adults in the house hold. That's $4,000 a month contributing to household expenses. Everyone could use their work money to develop a handsome savings month by month, year by year. With the dividend covering monthly housing and food expenses. Seriously, if it came down to Trump verse Yang, I have no reservations about voting for Yang.

 

Now full disclosure I haven't looked more into this much since this OP, but I would REALLY love if we could figure out how to make this work without having to have too much tax reform. It drives me batty that the left wants to try to tax more instead of TAKE THE MONEY AWAY FROM POLITICIANS. The lavish trips, the exorbitant salaries and pensions......that's taxpayer money that we never see again. We can make political office a more humble means, founding fathers didn't intend for them to be full-time jobs anyway I don't think, and still give back to the people with how taxes are currently.

 

What I like most about this guy is that he's clearly thinking ahead and he's focusing appealing to the conservative-leaning moderate vote by coming up with a way to "help the down-trodden" in a way that doesn't add on more taxes. I also like that he directly addresses it as a capitalist endeavor, not playing into the socialism we're seeing permeate the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 9:36 AM, Geezer said:

 

Candidates for office often come up with big ideas, that will pay people to vote for them. Vote for me and I’ll give you free universal health care, or a guaranteed monthly Income,or I’ll build a wall to protect our boarders.

 

In order for campaign promises to become a reality they have to get through Congress, and that is no small task.

 

 

 

I at least give credit to Trump for trying to make good on the campaign promise, unlike so many career politicians. Regardless of the debates surrounding the wall(s), so to speak. It is no small task. And again, I have to give credit where credit is due. 

 

But if he went up against Yang, I'd vote Yang. Trump has the economy booming. Commercial construction is going off. All over the place. Like I haven't seen it in over a decade. If that laid the ground work for an alternative non-career politician business man like Yang to step in take it further, so be it. The only thing I want to see is success and progress in this country. I don't really care who brings it, I just want to see it brought to the table. And I'll be appreciative and supportive of those who keep bringing it, whoever they may be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2019 at 10:34 AM, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Now full disclosure I haven't looked more into this much since this OP, but I would REALLY love if we could figure out how to make this work without having to have too much tax reform. It drives me batty that the left wants to try to tax more instead of TAKE THE MONEY AWAY FROM POLITICIANS. The lavish trips, the exorbitant salaries and pensions......that's taxpayer money that we never see again. We can make political office a more humble means, founding fathers didn't intend for them to be full-time jobs anyway I don't think, and still give back to the people with how taxes are currently.

 

What I like most about this guy is that he's clearly thinking ahead and he's focusing appealing to the conservative-leaning moderate vote by coming up with a way to "help the down-trodden" in a way that doesn't add on more taxes. I also like that he directly addresses it as a capitalist endeavor, not playing into the socialism we're seeing permeate the left.

 

Exactly!

 

I've poured over many an interview with Yang already. He tested the term "Freedom Dividend" for conservative support and found good results in surveys. His strategy is analyzing what got Trump elected in the first place and then consciously formulating an alternative moderate left platform to appeal to the same audiences that elected Trump, and possibly beat him at his own game. Yang has libertarian appeal as well. I think more so than Trump as far as libertarianism is concerned. 

 

And doing so as 'human centered capitalist', not a democratic socialist. So he doesn't suffer the same set backs that they are experiencing. And I tend to think that if there's a realistic way of improving the social safety net, the middle class, etc., etc., it will have to come as some type of revised human centered capitalism like he's talking about:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, a democrat who actually blames gun violence on mental illness rather than the guns themselves.  That type of common sense will never fly in his party.  How long before they give him the Sanders treatment?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 9:36 AM, RealityCheck said:

Hmm, a democrat who actually blames gun violence on mental illness rather than the guns themselves.  That type of common sense will never fly in his party.  How long before they give him the Sanders treatment?

 

A sensible dem, that may work against him. I hope not though. I'd like to see the guy get his chance to face off with Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulsi Gabbard seems like another popular, sensible dem. I wonder if having two underdogs splitting the non-establishment vote between them will only work against the non-establishment faction. Then again I have no idea how exactly the primary election works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spacer.png

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why I didn't see this earlier, but with all the talk of Yang being Trumps opposite as a joke, it's literally a "ying and yang" situation. He is literally the Yang to Trumps Yin. Funny how that works out.....

 

 

image.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2019 at 12:19 PM, wellnamed said:

spacer.png

 

 

Hmmmm....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still keeping an eye on Yang....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 4:10 PM, Joshpantera said:

I at least give credit to Trump for trying to make good on the campaign promise, unlike so many career politicians. Regardless of the debates surrounding the wall(s), so to speak. It is no small task. And again, I have to give credit where credit is due.

 

You mean the proposed wall that he had two years with a Republican Congress to get funding for and didn't but then blamed the Democrats for not wanting to fund it as soon as they took the House? That charade was a ridiculous political game.

 

On 3/10/2019 at 4:10 PM, Joshpantera said:

Trump has the economy booming.

 

How convenient for Trump that people give him credit for an economy that was already on the upswing before he was even elected and simply continued that trajectory. That makes about as much sense as when people act like Trump made himself rich even though his rich daddy gave him a shitload of money to start with.

 

Don't fall for the bullshit that Trump supporters spew. He's not all that he's cracked up to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Citsonga said:

people give him credit for an economy that was already on the upswing

 

Some people will support anything in the name of a "healthy" economy. 

Trump is violating the rule of law and flaunting it.  Yeah, defenders will say, "Don't be dramatic. Calling people Nazis is the oldest thing on the internet." 

It is...only if you take an objective view of Trump's policies (and his defiance of checks and balances...and contempt for any oversight...and his advocating white nationalism, the rule of other dictators, and the chopping up of reporters) then it's pretty clear where this is all heading. 

Rich Nazis before the end of WWII "This economy is really booming!" 

Everyone else: "We're going to have to kill these a-holes and take our country back."

The Nazis lost. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.