Sure but Yang says he's doing it for the millions of truck drivers and related jobs that will disappear. I think people would understand that rather than, where's mine?
I mean people already agree with supplements and low income policies.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
If the Democrats want to do the "America is already great" Hillary Clinton campaign 2.0 and succeed, they need someone pretty bloody charismatic to pull it off.
No, they just need to run someone who isn't hated.
Hilary Clinton didn't lose because she's a moderate. She lost because she's Hilary Clinton (and because she didn't campaign in what she foolishly regarded as safe states).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 02-13-2020 at 09:57 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
You're talking about a two trillion dollar annual economic stimulus package. It's not some minor policy, it's an enormous, radical change to the federal budget. When you're spending that much money, yeah, everyone wants to know "where's mine"...
But that's beside the point. You don't seem to be grasping the purpose of the whole enterprise, because what you're describing is antithetical to the main practical upshots of implementing UBI. The whole point is just cash in everyone's hands - it's not just a safety net, it's also a whole bunch of new consumer spending fueled by cash that would otherwise have simply sat in corporate coffers, and just as importantly, there's no new massive government bureaucracy needed to administer it, to watch over everyone to make sure they're not doing too well, such that they lose their benefits. "Capitalism where income doesn't start at zero", as Yang put it.
I don't know if he could have gotten it through both houses, but it's good that he put the concept on the national stage for discussion because I honestly think some form of it is probably inevitable.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Democrats who intend to make their choice based on electability outnumber those who will base it on a candidate's policy platform by 2 to 1.
Most Democrats who support moderates aren't against Sanders' policies. They believe his policies will never get implemented because he can't win a presidential election.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
UBI is essentially the reverse of a flat-tax. It's a flat-refund. Would likely be a better way to market it, an additional tax-rebate.
Where a flat tax disproportionately benefits the wealthy as they can afford $500/paycheque rather than say 33%; $500/paycheque for someone on minimum wage would bankrupt them.
Conversely, adding $500/paycheque to a top bracket earner isn't as much of a big deal; whereas an additional $500/paycheque would be huge relief for a low-income earner.
Here's the best part, the C-level executive would be more likely to spend the $500/paycheque on luxuries or vacation, as opposed to it being a number on a spreadsheet which sits there.
The low-income earner is likely spending it on necessities.
Generating spending, add in a multiplier effect (the executive tipping more at the restaurant puts even more money in the pocket of the server) and suddenly things pick up.
The danger is, what happens when the shock wears off?
Remember how war was good for the economy? Yeah it was, until war became the norm so it's no longer an economic shock, it's the economic norm.
That said, I think UBI is still an overall benefit, and if it gets to a point where the benefit becomes moot then we re-visit.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Democrats who intend to make their choice based on electability outnumber those who will base it on a candidate's policy platform by 2 to 1.
Most Democrats who support moderates aren't against Sanders' policies. They believe his policies will never get implemented because he can't win a presidential election.
Then those people won't have anything to be upset about when Bernie Sanders is elected as the 46th President of the United States of America in November.
I think that UBI is a bad idea, but my view has nothing to do with how electable it is. Here are my thoughts in no particular order:
- I often hear that UBI would be a more efficient way to administer social welfare that is already made available to citizens and that ultimately, it would save money. The idea is that it would streamline the process as everything would be consolidated through UBI. However, if the cost were to actually decrease, this would mean that government employees would be laid off and I have my serious doubts that the type of government that would roll out UBI would also be the type to layoff large swaths of government employees. I get how theoretically it might be possible that UBI could save administrative costs, in practice I doubt that it would ever happen.
- Yang's proposal was that every American would get $1,000 a month. This would be an enormous expense (especially if other government programs were not canceled subsequently) but let's assume that it would be fiscally possible to do at that level. How long would it be before that amount is increased? How easy would it be for a politician to claim that $12,000 a year is not enough? In a Democratic presidential primary, I think it would be quite easy to envision competing progressive candidates constantly pledging to up the UBI payout. Even more concerning is that there are virtually no politicians that are concerned with skyrocketing debt, and the average citizen is equally undisturbed by it. Why wouldn't people simply vote for the politician promising to directly give them the most money?
- The claims that it would boost the economy are similar to the claims that increasing the minimum wage would stimulate the economy. The argument goes that if someone that is earning $7.50/hour has their wage increased to $15/hour, you have doubled their buying power and they will go out and spend more in the local economy, acting as stimulus. Perhaps this is true, but what if instead of doubling the minimum wage, it was tripled to $22.50/hour? Would the economic effect be proportionally increased? What if it was raised to $50/hour? Would we create a super economy with unprecedented growth? Obviously not. Clearly, if this works at all, there is an equilibrium and yet for those that advocate for increased minimum wage, they seem to have just thoughtlessly landed on some random number without a thought to the deleterious effects that going too far would bring. I fear that this is the case with UBI as well.
- Another poster mentioned that if the benefit of UBI were to stagnate and diminish, it could be revisited. How exactly? How do you go from giving everyone a guaranteed sum of money, year after year, to taking it away from them. Think of any entitlement that we currently have and envision it being taken away. Disaster. Once UBI is rolled out, people will become dependent on it. Their spending habits will increase, but they will not be self-sufficient. The only way that you could revisit it would be to increase it, which I am sure would happen anyway.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
- Yang's proposal was that every American would get $1,000 a month. This would be an enormous expense (especially if other government programs were not canceled subsequently) but let's assume that it would be fiscally possible to do at that level. How long would it be before that amount is increased? How easy would it be for a politician to claim that $12,000 a year is not enough? In a Democratic presidential primary, I think it would be quite easy to envision competing progressive candidates constantly pledging to up the UBI payout. Even more concerning is that there are virtually no politicians that are concerned with skyrocketing debt, and the average citizen is equally undisturbed by it. Why wouldn't people simply vote for the politician promising to directly give them the most money?
This is quite the slippery slope fallacy you've created here.
Quote:
- Another poster mentioned that if the benefit of UBI were to stagnate and diminish, it could be revisited. How exactly? How do you go from giving everyone a guaranteed sum of money, year after year, to taking it away from them. Think of any entitlement that we currently have and envision it being taken away. Disaster. Once UBI is rolled out, people will become dependent on it. Their spending habits will increase, but they will not be self-sufficient. The only way that you could revisit it would be to increase it, which I am sure would happen anyway.
This, to me, is the real problem with it. Once it's in there, it's staying. Almost impossible to take it away in the future. People would have to be okay with that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
UBI isn't a terrible idea but the Democrats problem is marketing. There are 3 words that scare conservatives or even right leaning liberals more than anything.
Free
Universal
Everyone
You say one of those three words the discussion is over.
Yang's message is to simply redivide the pot but the word universal is a killer. Why should my husband and I get UBI?I'm in a two income family.
They can redivide money up in different ways. Using Canadian numbers let's be creative. What is EI max now? 2000 per month over 10 months? Why not throw some UBI money in there but shorten the period so people actually look for jobs. Like 4000 over 7 months. You get 8000 more but just gor 7 months.
Or restructure old age. Now you get 800 per month plus 500 supplement if you are poor?
Reverse that. 500 and 800. You would save 300 on the majority of people and put that into EI. You're trying to help specifically the people who are going to lose they job to automation so put the money into EI so they have money to go back to school or put it in a specific educational grant for eliminated job workers.
A person like me should not be getting a cent of UBI.
I agree with Yang's argument that the only way that this possibly works is give it to everyone. It doesn't matter if you're poor or you're Bezos, everyone gets it. If you don't do that, you'll end up with the same issue we have right now, in that only a certain group qualifies for it, which then fosters resentment from people who pay taxes that fund this without getting anything out of it.
In the grand scheme of things, the 1% get their 1K a month (if they so choose), but it's 1% of the total pool given out. It at least gives off a better perception that it's truly universal and does not discriminate, plus, in theory, it cuts down a lot of admin work required for approval processes.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Yen Man For This Useful Post:
In the grand scheme of things, the 1% get their 1K a month (if they so choose), but it's 1% of the total pool given out. It at least gives off a better perception that it's truly universal and does not discriminate, plus, in theory, it cuts down a lot of admin work required for approval processes.
You also have to opt in to actually get it, according to Yang's plan, so it's possible some of the richiest of the rich won't bother, or will take part in a program where they just re-direct it to charity automatically.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I agree with Yang's argument that the only way that this possibly works is give it to everyone. It doesn't matter if you're poor or you're Bezos, everyone gets it. If you don't do that, you'll end up with the same issue we have right now, in that only a certain group qualifies for it, which then fosters resentment from people who pay taxes that fund this without getting anything out of it.
In the grand scheme of things, the 1% get their 1K a month (if they so choose), but it's 1% of the total pool given out. It at least gives off a better perception that it's truly universal and does not discriminate, plus, in theory, it cuts down a lot of admin work required for approval processes.
How do you account for the basic inflationary effect of giving everyone a grand? everything the people you are trying to help buys would go up in price to absorb it in a week, especially accomadation, shysty landlords would be jacking up the cost of a slum the day it went into effect.
No, they just need to run someone who isn't hated.
Hilary Clinton didn't lose because she's a moderate. She lost because she's Hilary Clinton (and because she didn't campaign in what she foolishly regarded as safe states).
Why did Kerry and Gore lose, Cliff? Why did Obama pip Hillary and all of the "establishment" candidates for the 2008 election by running on single-payer health care? Obama obviously shifted towards the center once he was in office, but he was the progressive darling in 2008.
The problem for centrist Democrats (as you've noted before) is that they've largely abandoned their economic policy positions that tied them to unions and blue-collar workers to focus more on progressive social policies. They've essentially embraced Reagan-era Republican economics and combined it with 2020 "woke" culture. It's a losing combination because the social policies drive up Republican turnout, but the neoliberal economic policies depress the minority and young progressive votes, and do nothing to solve the issues facing unions and blue-collar workers who may be more on the fence about the social issues.
They've gone all-in on the assumption that their millenials and gen Z voters care more about "identity politics" than they do climate change, wealth disparity, health care, education, etc., and they're completely wrong.
^^I mean Gore technically won. Bernie will help drive progressive voters, unfortunately with Bernie Florida is gone, and I think one thing not being talked about enough is how Ohio is probably gone for the Dems too, regardless of nominee. Trump won Ohio by more than Obama or Bush or B. Clinton ever did. The rust belt strategy seems likely to fail since flipping Ohio looks pretty difficult. The Florida + Pennsylvania and/or Michigan path seems far more realistic.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
^^I mean Gore technically won. Bernie will help drive progressive voters, unfortunately with Bernie Florida is gone, and I think one thing not being talked about enough is how Ohio is probably gone for the Dems too, regardless of nominee. Trump won Ohio by more than Obama or Bush or B. Clinton ever did. The rust belt strategy seems likely to fail since flipping Ohio looks pretty difficult. The Florida + Pennsylvania and/or Michigan path seems far more realistic.
They don't necessarily need Florida either. Pennsylvania + Michigan + 1 of Wisconsin, Georgia, North Carolina, or Arizona would do the job, too.
I mean I get the joke - but even thinking there is a nugget of truth to Pete resembling any Republican of any type is hilarious from the far progressive left. His platform is left of Obama.
