I feel politically lost

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Yang's plan really has the right incentives:

1. Only for US citizens. It encourages legal immigration towards obtaining citizenship.

2. If you are in jail, you are not eligible. It encourages good behavior and reduces crime.

3. No marriage penalty. Married couple gets $2000.

4. No income limits. It encourages work as opposed to some welfare programs having strict income limit and reporting requirements.

5. Though kids are not eligible, once they turn 18, they will have their own money. It encourages financial literacy.

6. Poor people with no access to bank accounts will finally have their own.

Where does the money come from?

$12000 per year for every US citizen.

And how do we prove US citizenship? Can see lots of fraud/ID theft occurring.

We have a $20 trillion economy. The UBI will "cost" about 12%, 2.4 T. Money doesn't disappear. They recycle in the economy. In Yang's economy, 12% of total spending will be citizens' freedom dividend spending. He "pays" for this by a 10% of value added tax (VAT), and the overlap of existing government spending. Most countries have a VAT. With VAT, big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook have no way of avoiding being taxed. Right now they pay next to zero in taxes.

Our state department does a good job of issuing passports. Validating citizenships will not be that hard.

Why do this though? Won’t a $1,000 a month paycheck just increase consumer spending? Is that really what our environment needs?

This

How can anyone who claims to be pro-environment think this is a good idea? People will spend more to buy useless sh&t that they don’t need. It will definitely lead to an increase in consumer spending. Not a positive for the environment.

Lol, single ply for all!

I know you're not being serious, but, if you were, then I would say that increasing the purchasing power of the poorest Americans is the best way to decrease wasteful consumption because it allows them to buy in bulk, plan ahead and purchase higher quality less disposable items.

Oh, you think everyone is going to get a Costco membership? Trust me, the more money you have, the more junk you buy. It's better to reduce health care costs, education, and retirement savings, and housing benefits then just give everyone $1,000 to spend on god knows what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Yang's plan really has the right incentives:

1. Only for US citizens. It encourages legal immigration towards obtaining citizenship.

2. If you are in jail, you are not eligible. It encourages good behavior and reduces crime.

3. No marriage penalty. Married couple gets $2000.

4. No income limits. It encourages work as opposed to some welfare programs having strict income limit and reporting requirements.

5. Though kids are not eligible, once they turn 18, they will have their own money. It encourages financial literacy.

6. Poor people with no access to bank accounts will finally have their own.

Where does the money come from?

$12000 per year for every US citizen.

And how do we prove US citizenship? Can see lots of fraud/ID theft occurring.

We have a $20 trillion economy. The UBI will "cost" about 12%, 2.4 T. Money doesn't disappear. They recycle in the economy. In Yang's economy, 12% of total spending will be citizens' freedom dividend spending. He "pays" for this by a 10% of value added tax (VAT), and the overlap of existing government spending. Most countries have a VAT. With VAT, big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook have no way of avoiding being taxed. Right now they pay next to zero in taxes.

Our state department does a good job of issuing passports. Validating citizenships will not be that hard.

Why do this though? Won’t a $1,000 a month paycheck just increase consumer spending? Is that really what our environment needs?

This

How can anyone who claims to be pro-environment think this is a good idea? People will spend more to buy useless sh&t that they don’t need. It will definitely lead to an increase in consumer spending. Not a positive for the environment.

Lol, single ply for all!

I know you're not being serious, but, if you were, then I would say that increasing the purchasing power of the poorest Americans is the best way to decrease wasteful consumption because it allows them to buy in bulk, plan ahead and purchase higher quality less disposable items.

Oh, you think everyone is going to get a Costco membership? Trust me, the more money you have, the more junk you buy. It's better to reduce health care costs, education, and retirement savings, and housing benefits then just give everyone $1,000 to spend on god knows what.

Some will. Some won't. I'd rather err on the side of personal freedom and efficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Yang's plan really has the right incentives:

1. Only for US citizens. It encourages legal immigration towards obtaining citizenship.

2. If you are in jail, you are not eligible. It encourages good behavior and reduces crime.

3. No marriage penalty. Married couple gets $2000.

4. No income limits. It encourages work as opposed to some welfare programs having strict income limit and reporting requirements.

5. Though kids are not eligible, once they turn 18, they will have their own money. It encourages financial literacy.

6. Poor people with no access to bank accounts will finally have their own.

Where does the money come from?

$12000 per year for every US citizen.

And how do we prove US citizenship? Can see lots of fraud/ID theft occurring.

We have a $20 trillion economy. The UBI will "cost" about 12%, 2.4 T. Money doesn't disappear. They recycle in the economy. In Yang's economy, 12% of total spending will be citizens' freedom dividend spending. He "pays" for this by a 10% of value added tax (VAT), and the overlap of existing government spending. Most countries have a VAT. With VAT, big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook have no way of avoiding being taxed. Right now they pay next to zero in taxes.

Our state department does a good job of issuing passports. Validating citizenships will not be that hard.

Why do this though? Won’t a $1,000 a month paycheck just increase consumer spending? Is that really what our environment needs?

This

How can anyone who claims to be pro-environment think this is a good idea? People will spend more to buy useless sh&t that they don’t need. It will definitely lead to an increase in consumer spending. Not a positive for the environment.

Lol, single ply for all!

I know you're not being serious, but, if you were, then I would say that increasing the purchasing power of the poorest Americans is the best way to decrease wasteful consumption because it allows them to buy in bulk, plan ahead and purchase higher quality less disposable items.

That is hilarious. Not quite how it will work.

What makes you think I’m not being serious? (Someone else replied to you above.)

It is somewhat hypocritical for pro-environment voters to encourage more consumer spending. So that businesses (like Costco and Walmart) can make even more of a profit selling Americans more crap. Something seems off about that idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Yang's plan really has the right incentives:

1. Only for US citizens. It encourages legal immigration towards obtaining citizenship.

2. If you are in jail, you are not eligible. It encourages good behavior and reduces crime.

3. No marriage penalty. Married couple gets $2000.

4. No income limits. It encourages work as opposed to some welfare programs having strict income limit and reporting requirements.

5. Though kids are not eligible, once they turn 18, they will have their own money. It encourages financial literacy.

6. Poor people with no access to bank accounts will finally have their own.

Where does the money come from?

$12000 per year for every US citizen.

And how do we prove US citizenship? Can see lots of fraud/ID theft occurring.

We have a $20 trillion economy. The UBI will "cost" about 12%, 2.4 T. Money doesn't disappear. They recycle in the economy. In Yang's economy, 12% of total spending will be citizens' freedom dividend spending. He "pays" for this by a 10% of value added tax (VAT), and the overlap of existing government spending. Most countries have a VAT. With VAT, big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook have no way of avoiding being taxed. Right now they pay next to zero in taxes.

Our state department does a good job of issuing passports. Validating citizenships will not be that hard.

Why do this though? Won’t a $1,000 a month paycheck just increase consumer spending? Is that really what our environment needs?

This

How can anyone who claims to be pro-environment think this is a good idea? People will spend more to buy useless sh&t that they don’t need. It will definitely lead to an increase in consumer spending. Not a positive for the environment.

Lol, single ply for all!

I know you're not being serious, but, if you were, then I would say that increasing the purchasing power of the poorest Americans is the best way to decrease wasteful consumption because it allows them to buy in bulk, plan ahead and purchase higher quality less disposable items.

That is hilarious. Not quite how it will work.

What makes you think I’m not being serious? (Someone else replied to you above.)

It is somewhat hypocritical for pro-environment voters to encourage more consumer spending. So that businesses (like Costco and Walmart) can make even more of a profit selling Americans more crap. Something seems off about that idea.

I don't think you're serious because you are parroting a fundamentally unserious right wing trope. If you truly believed that claptrap you would not be on the internet you would be living in the woods hunting for moss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Yang's plan really has the right incentives:

1. Only for US citizens. It encourages legal immigration towards obtaining citizenship.

2. If you are in jail, you are not eligible. It encourages good behavior and reduces crime.

3. No marriage penalty. Married couple gets $2000.

4. No income limits. It encourages work as opposed to some welfare programs having strict income limit and reporting requirements.

5. Though kids are not eligible, once they turn 18, they will have their own money. It encourages financial literacy.

6. Poor people with no access to bank accounts will finally have their own.

Where does the money come from?

$12000 per year for every US citizen.

And how do we prove US citizenship? Can see lots of fraud/ID theft occurring.

We have a $20 trillion economy. The UBI will "cost" about 12%, 2.4 T. Money doesn't disappear. They recycle in the economy. In Yang's economy, 12% of total spending will be citizens' freedom dividend spending. He "pays" for this by a 10% of value added tax (VAT), and the overlap of existing government spending. Most countries have a VAT. With VAT, big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook have no way of avoiding being taxed. Right now they pay next to zero in taxes.

Our state department does a good job of issuing passports. Validating citizenships will not be that hard.

Why do this though? Won’t a $1,000 a month paycheck just increase consumer spending? Is that really what our environment needs?

This

How can anyone who claims to be pro-environment think this is a good idea? People will spend more to buy useless sh&t that they don’t need. It will definitely lead to an increase in consumer spending. Not a positive for the environment.

Lol, single ply for all!

I know you're not being serious, but, if you were, then I would say that increasing the purchasing power of the poorest Americans is the best way to decrease wasteful consumption because it allows them to buy in bulk, plan ahead and purchase higher quality less disposable items.

That is hilarious. Not quite how it will work.

What makes you think I’m not being serious? (Someone else replied to you above.)

It is somewhat hypocritical for pro-environment voters to encourage more consumer spending. So that businesses (like Costco and Walmart) can make even more of a profit selling Americans more crap. Something seems off about that idea.

I don't think you're serious because you are parroting a fundamentally unserious right wing trope. If you truly believed that claptrap you would not be on the internet you would be living in the woods hunting for moss.

God, you’re naive. I don’t know many right-wingers who advocate reducing consumerism, btw. So no one is “parroting” a GOP “trope.”

Anyway, this certainly confirms my initial instinct that Andrew Yang has odd ideas that are unworkable and undesirable. I hope he drops out soon. We need to narrow down the field. I encourage him to run for city council in his local community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Yang's plan really has the right incentives:

1. Only for US citizens. It encourages legal immigration towards obtaining citizenship.

2. If you are in jail, you are not eligible. It encourages good behavior and reduces crime.

3. No marriage penalty. Married couple gets $2000.

4. No income limits. It encourages work as opposed to some welfare programs having strict income limit and reporting requirements.

5. Though kids are not eligible, once they turn 18, they will have their own money. It encourages financial literacy.

6. Poor people with no access to bank accounts will finally have their own.

Where does the money come from?

$12000 per year for every US citizen.

And how do we prove US citizenship? Can see lots of fraud/ID theft occurring.

We have a $20 trillion economy. The UBI will "cost" about 12%, 2.4 T. Money doesn't disappear. They recycle in the economy. In Yang's economy, 12% of total spending will be citizens' freedom dividend spending. He "pays" for this by a 10% of value added tax (VAT), and the overlap of existing government spending. Most countries have a VAT. With VAT, big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook have no way of avoiding being taxed. Right now they pay next to zero in taxes.

Our state department does a good job of issuing passports. Validating citizenships will not be that hard.

Why do this though? Won’t a $1,000 a month paycheck just increase consumer spending? Is that really what our environment needs?

This

How can anyone who claims to be pro-environment think this is a good idea? People will spend more to buy useless sh&t that they don’t need. It will definitely lead to an increase in consumer spending. Not a positive for the environment.

Lol, single ply for all!

I know you're not being serious, but, if you were, then I would say that increasing the purchasing power of the poorest Americans is the best way to decrease wasteful consumption because it allows them to buy in bulk, plan ahead and purchase higher quality less disposable items.

That is hilarious. Not quite how it will work.

What makes you think I’m not being serious? (Someone else replied to you above.)

It is somewhat hypocritical for pro-environment voters to encourage more consumer spending. So that businesses (like Costco and Walmart) can make even more of a profit selling Americans more crap. Something seems off about that idea.

I don't think you're serious because you are parroting a fundamentally unserious right wing trope. If you truly believed that claptrap you would not be on the internet you would be living in the woods hunting for moss.

God, you’re naive. I don’t know many right-wingers who advocate reducing consumerism, btw. So no one is “parroting” a GOP “trope.”

Anyway, this certainly confirms my initial instinct that Andrew Yang has odd ideas that are unworkable and undesirable. I hope he drops out soon. We need to narrow down the field. I encourage him to run for city council in his local community.

Agree about Yang on both counts.

[Anonymous]

Please, there have been dozens of threads on here about Al Gore's use of a car, Obama's new beach house, and Greta Thornberg to easily counter your assertion.

If you were actually being serious that is worse. Intentionally denying lower income Americans the benefits of an extra ply is overly self righteous.

I'm not even a Yang supporter, i just find UBI interesting, however this is the type of thinking that causes Dems to lose and gave rise to Trump. Thinking that we know better than everyone else is the problem. The ends don't justify the means. Overly complicated highly bureaucratic programs are inefficient and prone to capture by secial interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Yang's plan really has the right incentives:

1. Only for US citizens. It encourages legal immigration towards obtaining citizenship.

2. If you are in jail, you are not eligible. It encourages good behavior and reduces crime.

3. No marriage penalty. Married couple gets $2000.

4. No income limits. It encourages work as opposed to some welfare programs having strict income limit and reporting requirements.

5. Though kids are not eligible, once they turn 18, they will have their own money. It encourages financial literacy.

6. Poor people with no access to bank accounts will finally have their own.

Where does the money come from?

$12000 per year for every US citizen.

And how do we prove US citizenship? Can see lots of fraud/ID theft occurring.

We have a $20 trillion economy. The UBI will "cost" about 12%, 2.4 T. Money doesn't disappear. They recycle in the economy. In Yang's economy, 12% of total spending will be citizens' freedom dividend spending. He "pays" for this by a 10% of value added tax (VAT), and the overlap of existing government spending. Most countries have a VAT. With VAT, big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook have no way of avoiding being taxed. Right now they pay next to zero in taxes.

Our state department does a good job of issuing passports. Validating citizenships will not be that hard.

Why do this though? Won’t a $1,000 a month paycheck just increase consumer spending? Is that really what our environment needs?

And, also, won't it just lead to the cost of goods/services increasing?

In 2016, for many voters, their living conditions and future prospects were so dire that they took a chance of electing a reality TV star. That problem has only gotten worse. Majority of Americans don't have $400 emergency fund, and 75% live paycheck to paycheck. More call center jobs, retail jobs, truck driving jobs, and others will be lost to AI soon. That's why the freedom dividend is needed to improve the lives of the poor and middle class.

The market competition still works. Neither the massive tax cuts, nor the Federal Reserve injecting large amount of liquidity caused any inflation. The freedom dividend will not cause inflation either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Yang's plan really has the right incentives:

1. Only for US citizens. It encourages legal immigration towards obtaining citizenship.

2. If you are in jail, you are not eligible. It encourages good behavior and reduces crime.

3. No marriage penalty. Married couple gets $2000.

4. No income limits. It encourages work as opposed to some welfare programs having strict income limit and reporting requirements.

5. Though kids are not eligible, once they turn 18, they will have their own money. It encourages financial literacy.

6. Poor people with no access to bank accounts will finally have their own.

Where does the money come from?

$12000 per year for every US citizen.

And how do we prove US citizenship? Can see lots of fraud/ID theft occurring.

We have a $20 trillion economy. The UBI will "cost" about 12%, 2.4 T. Money doesn't disappear. They recycle in the economy. In Yang's economy, 12% of total spending will be citizens' freedom dividend spending. He "pays" for this by a 10% of value added tax (VAT), and the overlap of existing government spending. Most countries have a VAT. With VAT, big tech companies like Amazon and Facebook have no way of avoiding being taxed. Right now they pay next to zero in taxes.

Our state department does a good job of issuing passports. Validating citizenships will not be that hard.

Why do this though? Won’t a $1,000 a month paycheck just increase consumer spending? Is that really what our environment needs?

And, also, won't it just lead to the cost of goods/services increasing?

Over time, like any other inflationary action like tax cuts or interest rate cuts that ncreases demand.

The difference is that UBI does a much better job of increasing demand on the lower end of the income scale. Right now our economy is highly stratified and purchasinggpower is way skewed. This has led to massive distortions and has dissuaded economic investment on goods/products that target the lower ends of the income range. Because of this existing distortion products that target the lower bound are comparatively overpriced and under competitive. Moreover the way low income benefits are administered tends to force people to make smaller short term purchases which are more expensive on a per unit basis. In addition, the lack of bank accounts also prevents this same group from utilizing the internet tonpurchase goods. This, somewhat paradoxically, UBI has the potential to actually decrease costs for those on the lower bound by increasing purchasing power and opportunity while increasing demad/competition for lower cost goods.

+1

If there is inflation pressure, it will finally force the central bank to increase the interest rate. The current low rate environment only helps the wealthy and big businesses. The bump in interest rate will help seniors and middle class who don't play in the equity market.

[Anonymous]

My views don’t align with some of the loudest liberals. Look beyond the talking points, and understand we’re not all in agreement on everything.

There’s no way I’ll vote for Trump, but I wasn’t thrilled about voting for Clinton in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Look, voting is not like giving a prize. Think of it as being in a used car lot with no vehicle. You have to go with whichever one you think is going to be a little better than the others, otherwise if you don’t want to make a choice then someone else may choose a super sucky one for you. That’s it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, voting is not like giving a prize. Think of it as being in a used car lot with no vehicle. You have to go with whichever one you think is going to be a little better than the others, otherwise if you don’t want to make a choice then someone else may choose a super sucky one for you. That’s it.

PS personally I think that the Republicans/their base are showing that they are willing to destroy democratic institutions for political aims. Once that happens this country is done. So for me policy is secondary to, is this country still going to function?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, voting is not like giving a prize. Think of it as being in a used car lot with no vehicle. You have to go with whichever one you think is going to be a little better than the others, otherwise if you don’t want to make a choice then someone else may choose a super sucky one for you. That’s it.

LOL! This is quite accurate.

Vote for the vehicle that’ll get you where you need to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My views don’t align with some of the loudest liberals. Look beyond the talking points, and understand we’re not all in agreement on everything.

There’s no way I’ll vote for Trump, but I wasn’t thrilled about voting for Clinton in 2016.

Why? Because he’s a jerk? Aren’t most politicians?

Because he’s dishonest? Aren’t most politicians dishonest?

Ask yourself how things are going for you now and if you feel that his policies are working or not working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My views don’t align with some of the loudest liberals. Look beyond the talking points, and understand we’re not all in agreement on everything.

There’s no way I’ll vote for Trump, but I wasn’t thrilled about voting for Clinton in 2016.

Why? Because he’s a jerk? Aren’t most politicians?

Because he’s dishonest? Aren’t most politicians dishonest?

Ask yourself how things are going for you now and if you feel that his policies are working or not working.

You sound like the guy selling drugs to kids in an 80s era public service announcement!