quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
UBI I have no issues about, so long as its the same as what's discussed around the world. Everyone below specific income, gets a supplement UBI. That also means that civic entitlements like food stamps, social services, unemployment and welfare are eliminated, since those AND a UBI would be considered double-dipping.

And that's where Yang's proposal would hypothetically find the rest of the money for his program(s). Unfortunately, as they always say, once an entitlement program is begun, it can never be terminated, so good luck to Yang in taking away all that coin from the freeloaders, regardless what he promises to give them in exchange.

He's not proposing taking away the programs, that I've heard. It's either stay on the program(s), or get the check for $1,000, to spend however you want.

Likely correct, but I believe most of the people sucking up those bennies get a whole lot more than $1k a year from the government. That right there is one of the biggest flaws in his plan as I don't see anyone turning loose of a single dollar of assistance they receive today for the promise of a $1k payout. That's why I used the term hypothetical above, because its all just pie in the sky BS.

Aren't there people on welfare, food stamps, and the entire entitlement gamut of gubment assistnace making $90k a year???

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Would be far more lucrative to fine auto manufacturer $1m for every person killed with one of their cars.

I almost posted this exact same thing. Cars have killed more people than any gun ever has...

I just wish Ted Nugent would do a solid for the "Yang Gang" and re-record Wang Dang Sweet Poontang.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:
Maybe Yang's plan is to use the fines collected from gun manufacturers to fund his UBI proposal.

Would be far more lucrative to fine auto manufacturer $1m for every person killed with one of their cars. Or how about fining pharma companies $1m for every person killed using one of their products.

This sort of BS thinking by Yang proves he's no where near as smart as he thinks he is.

It's not the job of a gun manufacturer to monitor or control who buys one of their products. That same logic could be applied to Tide detergent, saying they should be working to keep people from eating their pods.

flashguy

Bigdeal, he is wanting to give out 1K a month, to everyone, not per year.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:
Maybe Yang's plan is to use the fines collected from gun manufacturers to fund his UBI proposal.

Would be far more lucrative to fine auto manufacturer $1m for every person killed with one of their cars. Or how about fining pharma companies $1m for every person killed using one of their products.

This sort of BS thinking by Yang proves he's no where near as smart as he thinks he is.

It's not the job of a gun manufacturer to monitor or control who buys one of their products. That same logic could be applied to Tide detergent, saying they should be working to keep people from eating their pods.

flashguy

I wouldn't be surprised to hear such an preposterous gun control proposal from someone such as AOC, but Yang has a JD from Columbia Law. How can any attorney propose something so outlandish knowing what kind of legal precedent it would set?

I know fining gun manufacturers into extinction is a gun control activist's wet dream, but from a legal standpoint, it would open the door for autos, drugs, knives, alcoholic beverages, power tools, swimming pools, you name it to be sued/fined for their products getting into the wrong hands or used for illegal purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
^^^ I'm not arguing for it, but what he's pushing is for EVERYONE to get a check, hence the name universal. (You can't be on other federal programs and still get the check.)

I think Milton Friedman was in favor of some sort of UBI, aka, a "reverse income tax."

Here's a brief explanation of UBI:
l video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADCOI2k0Eyc

Interesting theory, says it's more effective than entitlement programs. Let's take it one step further and make it super efficient on steroids. Cut everyone's taxes by $1,000 per month, let's see what that does for economy, efficiency, and personal freedoms.

That would be way more efficient than taking money every Friday to give it back to me on the 1st of the month. Seems kind of stupid to even type that. No need for a new Dept. Of Free Money either.

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:
I wouldn't be surprised to hear such an preposterous gun control proposal from someone such as AOC, but Yang has a JD from Columbia Law.

But I think there's a disconnect there. I've had this very conversation with a couple people recently. IMO, 'Education' does not equal 'Intellect or Intelligence'. Education simply means one can temporarily memorize data long enough to regurgitate it on an exam. On the other hand, intellect and intelligence is not taught and comes into play when people can reason their way through something they have no background or experience in. Education is no substitute for intelligence or intellect, but intelligence and intellect are most assuredly a replacement for education.

For the record, and with all due respect to some of the members here, attorneys with flashy degrees have been some of the most detached and unintelligent people I've ever had to deal with in the business community.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
Interesting theory, says it's more effective than entitlement programs. Let's take it one step further and make it super efficient on steroids. Cut everyone's taxes by $1,000 per month, let's see what that does for economy, efficiency, and personal freedoms.

That would be way more efficient than taking money every Friday to give it back to me on the 1st of the month. Seems kind of stupid to even type that. No need for a new Dept. Of Free Money either.

But that isn't 'universal' because you can't cut someone's taxes by $1k who doesn't pay taxes at all (and in many cases actually gets money back).

As far as his gun proposal, I think he is, at least, trying to incentivize a move to dumb, er “smart” guns.

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
As far as his gun proposal, I think he is, at least, trying to incentivize a move to dumb, er “smart” guns.

Yes, you just have to read the Twitter exchange. He was just wanting a way to incentivize gun makers to help stem gun violence.

Yang is by far and away the most tolerable of the dems candidates. He's seems fairly pragmatic and not just a spouter of talking points. Even if I don't agree with something he says, I can see the reasoning and thought process behind it which is saying a lot for most politicians.

I think he could be talked into supporting gun education and handling. He wants to be solution oriented and admits that a world without guns isn't in the realm of reality.

I think if someone turned him onto the black guns matter movement, he would be a supporter.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
UBI I have no issues about, so long as its the same as what's discussed around the world. Everyone below specific income, gets a supplement UBI. That also means that civic entitlements like food stamps, social services, unemployment and welfare are eliminated, since those AND a UBI would be considered double-dipping.

And that's where Yang's proposal would hypothetically find the rest of the money for his program(s). Unfortunately, as they always say, once an entitlement program is begun, it can never be terminated, so good luck to Yang in taking away all that coin from the freeloaders, regardless what he promises to give them in exchange.

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
I think Milton Friedman was in favor of some sort of UBI, aka, a "reverse income tax."

You are correct in that Friedman was indeed in favor of addressing poverty through a UBI. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough videos of him talking about it for us to fully grasp what his complete approach would be. Its probably the one topic I would have loved to have had a conversation with Milton about. And yes, Milton is one of my all time favorite people (yep, I'm an econ geek).

This is where UBI hasn't been fully fleshed-out in the debate and public discourse forums; for most policians and a big chunk of the public, all that thinking hurts too much. The economists that have pushed this idea, have presented it as an alternative to the current welfare system as it stands, allowing choice in an open market. Many of the Dems can't stand the open market and see it 'as oppressive' . You are correct, that introducing UBI to replace entirely the smorgasbord of current entitlements, would require a monumental act of salesmanship in order to convince those who are entirely reliant on the status quo.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
As far as his gun proposal, I think he is, at least, trying to incentivize a move to dumb, er “smart” guns.

Yes, you just have to read the Twitter exchange. He was just wanting a way to incentivize gun makers to help stem gun violence.

Yang is by far and away the most tolerable of the dems candidates.

No, that would be Tulsi Gabbard. For chrissakes, Yang during that debate basically told people who are living in Key West and the Coasts to head for higher ground, now! Climate change is coming! I could never tolerate that type of idiocy in the White House.

Although, in some ways if one really believes in this catastrophic climate change nonsense, his position is the most sane because America alone doing something will never change anything. Not with the likes of China and other developing countries spewing filth into the environment unchecked. So in that respect, yeah, it is too late. In the immortal words of Iron Maiden, run to the hills!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:

quote:

Originally posted by rusbro:
As far as his gun proposal, I think he is, at least, trying to incentivize a move to dumb, er “smart” guns.

Yes, you just have to read the Twitter exchange. He was just wanting a way to incentivize gun makers to help stem gun violence.

Yang is by far and away the most tolerable of the dems candidates.

No, that would be Tulsi Gabbard. For chrissakes, Yang during that debate basically told people who are living in Key West and the Coasts to head for higher ground, now! Climate change is coming! I could never tolerate that type of idiocy in the White House.

Although, in some ways if one really believes in this catastrophic climate change nonsense, his position is the most sane because America alone doing something will never change anything. Not with the likes of China and other developing countries spewing filth into the environment unchecked. So in that respect, yeah, it is too late. In the immortal words of Iron Maiden, run to the hills!

Your misrepresenting his statement.

This is how he started the answer:

“The important number in this is 15 percent of global emissions,” Yang began, referring to the U.S. share of overall carbon pollution. “We like to act as if we’re 100 percent. Even if we were to curb our emissions dramatically, the Earth is going to get warmer. The last four years have been the four warmest years in history. We are too late. We are 10 years too late.”

Then there is the statement in question:

“We need to do everything we can to start moving the climate in the right direction,” he continued, “but we also need to start moving our people to higher ground—and the best way to do that is to put economic resources into your hands so you can protect yourself and your families.”

It was just a segue to start talking about his economic policies. Anyone who thinks that's his actual plan is being disingenuous.

Was it poorly worded and a silly statement, yes. Is his actual plan to move people to higher ground, of course not.

Politicians don't care about you checking the specifics of what they say. They just want you to (hear) the narrative.

quote:

Originally posted by satch:
Politicians don't care about you checking the specifics of what they say. They just want you to (hear) the narrative.

True, but, he's less of a politician than anyone else running, I think. Again, I'm not saying I want him to be president, but I think he's being honest when he says he's running because he believes AI and robotics are going to cause mass unemployment in a few years, and that he believes UBI is the most likely way to avoid an economic catastrophe - something I'm far from convinced of.

Also, every candidate is expected to have confident opinions on a range of issues, and pretty much all of them feel it's better to be confident than correct when talking about something they have only a cursory understanding of.

I can just hear it now: "I already spent my $1000 but I still want my entitlements." "Or Why would I want to lose my entitlements and take that pay cut of only $1000?"

I got a request from him for a campaign contribution. I replied that I was expecting money from him. No reply , Very disappointed.

quote:

Originally posted by fiasconva:
I can just hear it now: "I already spent my $1000 but I still want my entitlements." "Or Why would I want to lose my entitlements and take that pay cut of only $1000?"

The answer from this crowd would always be the same..."We deserve both."

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by fiasconva:
I can just hear it now: "I already spent my $1000 but I still want my entitlements." "Or Why would I want to lose my entitlements and take that pay cut of only $1000?"

The answer from this crowd would always be the same..."We deserve both."

And an iPhone.