View Full Version : Democratic Candidate Andrew Yang Proposes $1,000 A Month To Every American...
There is socialism, and then there is this.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/andrew-yang-wants-to-run-for-president-promising-free-cash-handouts.html
I wonder where he thinks all that "free cash" will come from.
Currently our GDP for 2018 is 18.62 trillion. Our current debt is 21.68 trillion.
So that means for 2018 we were in the hole about 3 trillion dollars.
Now some countries, like Qatar, are so wealthy their GDP far exceeds any debts and they can actually afford to pay their citizens money just for being citizens. They also enjoy one of the highest standards of living and have no income tax. But they have the worlds 4th largest GDP per capita.
We however are not in that situation.
Straight Shooter
03-12-19, 22:04
Dude..damn it aint that hard..they can just print the money.
Yall so dumb.
Dr. Bullseye
03-12-19, 22:12
The goal of Liberalism is Socialism. The goal of Socialism is Communism.
We have passed the Liberalism stage.
The_War_Wagon
03-12-19, 22:45
Hey - it worked for Jimmah Catah... PRINTING our way OUT of malaise!
Oh wait... it didn't. :fie:
BoringGuy45
03-12-19, 22:48
This Andrew Yang guy could be dangerous. He's yet another one cut from the AOC cloth: A younger guy who doesn't have a goddamn clue about anything, but thinks he has everything figured out. He's getting young people excited because of his supposedly revolutionary utopian ideas.
I've read several articles that talk about UBI in the context of job displacement by automation.
Quite frankly don't know what to think about it. I'm old enough that I'm not going to have to deal with the prospect like younger folks will have to.
The UBI itself may not actually be socialism, since EVERYONE gets $1,000 a month. But there is validity to the argument that funding such an endeavor with a VAT reeks of socialism. The argument against is that if the VAT is levied on the basis of jobs replaced by robots/automation it is in essence defraying the cost to society of those lost jobs.
Another solution might be to get involved in a two front war with China and Russia as a method of population control.
The goal of Liberalism is Socialism. The goal of Socialism is Communism.
We have passed the Liberalism stage.
Even socialist countries don't just send everyone a check. It actually takes a "for profit" country like Qatar to achieve such things and they can only do it given their oil wealth greatly exceeds the needs and demands of it's population.
I was wondering how long it would take for a thread to pop up about this guy. I'm actually surprised it took this long.. He was on Joe Rogan's podcast a few weeks ago IIRC.
Yang is troubling to me because he seems to have a similar charisma to Obama. He seems like he's trying to come across as a down to earth entrepreneur who just cares about the working class (I don't believe that for a second).. I could see this guy climbing to the top of the Democrats presidential pile quickly. He seems to be pulling from a lot of Bernie voters, but he's young and well spoken as well. Looking through some of the comment sections of his videos on the internet, you see a lot of supportive comments from obvious lefties, but also a few self proclaimed "conservatives" as well. That could be typical comment section propaganda BS, but I wouldn't completely discount it either.
He's one to keep an eye on I think.
You should see his stance on the second amendment posted on his website.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
I was wondering how long it would take for a thread to pop up about this guy. I'm actually surprised it took this long.. He was on Joe Rogan's podcast a few weeks ago IIRC.
Yang is troubling to me because he seems to have a similar charisma to Obama. He seems like he's trying to come across as a down to earth entrepreneur who just cares about the working class (I don't believe that for a second).. I could see this guy climbing to the top of the Democrats presidential pile quickly. He seems to be pulling from a lot of Bernie voters, but he's young and well spoken as well. Looking through some of the comment sections of his videos on the internet, you see a lot of supportive comments from obvious lefties, but also a few self proclaimed "conservatives" as well. That could be typical comment section propaganda BS, but I wouldn't completely discount it either.
He's one to keep an eye on I think.
You should see his stance on the second amendment posted on his website.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Yeah, he has clown shoes and a fundamental misunderstanding of civil rights.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/
He wants it to be like getting a drivers license and driving a car. Unfortunately there is nothing in the constitution about "right to conveyance", but there is definitely something there about "right to bear arms."
Stated goals are:
Create a common sense licensing policy, requiring investment and safety precautions
Prevent dangerous individuals from owning guns
Encourage innovation in firearm personalization and safety
Enhance mental health resources available to people who need help
So the first one is that we be licensed and have to pay to enjoy a civil right. Let's try that with any of the others like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Sure you can express yourself BUT you have to be regulated by the FCC in order to express an opinion, must obtain a license and have insurance, etc. What a laugh.
And if we could "prevent dangerous people" from doing anything, we wouldn't have a problem. The problem isn't "dangerous people" who get guns, knives, korans, or whatever. The problem is we tolerate dangerous people walking around. If they are so dangerous they can't be trusted with a gun, knife or koran, then why aren't they in jail? Also simply declaring who and what constitutes "dangerous" hardly has a consensus. I personally think Pelosi and Yang are very, very dangerous people and shouldn't have any access at all to government in any form for the safety of the community.
And then we have our old friend again, "personalized firearms" or "smart guns", things that require a magnetic ring or some other personal identifier that allows the firearm to function. Because when you need a firearm to save your life or that of your loved ones, there is nothing better than additional complexity that has a probability of failure. Of course if we didn't have dangerous people out walking around willy nilly, we wouldn't need smart guns now would we? Perhaps we can focus on criminals rather than inanimate objects. Criminals use cars for crime, how about we over regulate the automobile industry to insure criminals can't get a reliable means of transportation. Because that would be stupid right?
And then we throw in the "enhanced mental health resources" because Democrats are convinced at some level that ALL gun owners are crazy. Of course nobody is trying to help any gun owner with something like PTSD, they are just trying to make sure things as arbitrary as PTSD can be used to strip individuals of personal freedom. And honestly, after 8 years of Obama, if you are a gun owner that didn't experience some level of PTSD trying to defend your personal freedoms then you probably have some other kind of mental disorder.
I can't stand these simple minded idiots who think THEY have come up with some magic pill that will actually solve a problem without victimizing millions of innocent people. But since we are on the subject, I have an idea.
I can solve the problem of homelessness by REQUIRING every person to purchase a home. And if they don't purchase a home, we can simply fine them like we did with the Obamacare mandate. Yay, I just solved the problem of homeless people. That is the campaign I'm going to run on in the next election. And if you disagree with any part of my ideas then YOU HATE HOMELESS AMERICANS.
Hoping that Ivanka will be willing to run as my VP.
echo5whiskey
03-13-19, 02:13
You should see his stance on the second amendment posted on his website.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
That was rough. :blink:
Averageman
03-13-19, 03:23
The Left has just pushed forward another chump to get up on the stump and push forward Socialism.
You must recognize that there exists a remarkably uniform, bipartisan, Progressive ruling class; that it includes, most of the bureaucracies of federal and state governments, the judiciary, the educational establishment, the media, as well as major corporate officials; that it had separated itself socially, morally, and politically from the rest of society, whose commanding heights it monopolized; above all that it has contempt for the rest of America, and that ordinary Americans have no means of persuading this class of anything, because they don’t count.
And yet we keep giving them our money and re-electing them to rule over us.
Ironic aint it?
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-13-19, 03:43
Sweet, a new gun a month, thank Andy Yang!
These will be the two biggest platforms during the ComDem primaries:
1. Who hates Trump the most.
2. Who can give away the most "free" stuff.
Half the people in this country believe that we can pay for free medical, free college, and now universal income by taxing the "rich".
The worst thing us that those poor dumb bastards are dragging the rest of us down with them.
1000 dollars a month in my gun fund maybe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So the the winning formula would be:
1 Who hates Trump the most, and gives away Trumps money...
These will be the two biggest platforms during the ComDem primaries:
1. Who hates Trump the most.
2. Who can give away the most "free" stuff.
How about this:
Whatever you earn, you keep
Get a job
Learn a trade
If too stupid to do that, be a hooker
Being a hooker is a job
Legalize being a hooker
You could divvy up ALL the world’s wealth equally and in 3 months we’d be right back where we are
We live in a society of pimps, johns, and whores. Find out which one suits you best and go with it
Fireflynomics 101
Doc Safari
03-13-19, 10:41
I sometimes think we should just all vote ourselves as many goodies as possible. The system will collapse quickly and we can start over.
How about this:
Whatever you earn, you keep
Get a job
Learn a trade
If too stupid to do that, be a hooker
Being a hooker is a job
Legalize being a hooker
You could divvy up ALL the world’s wealth equally and in 3 months we’d be right back where we are
We live in a society of pimps, johns, and whores. Find out which one suits you best and go with it
Fireflynomics 101
I'd make a bad hooker
MountainRaven
03-13-19, 13:25
Half the people in this country believe that we can pay for free medical, free college, and now universal income by taxing the "rich".
The worst thing us that those poor dumb bastards are dragging the rest of us down with them.
It's probably worth remembering that many proponents of UBI propose that it be paid mostly or entirely by dismantling all other social welfare programs: No more EBT, no more welfare, &c. That's not to say that it would be possible to have a UBI be $1000 a month by paying for it with money formerly earmarked for welfare programs, cuz I don't know who has done what math on it. But that's the theory.
I'd make a bad hooker
Nah, you just don’t get to charge as much
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
morbidbattlecry
03-15-19, 17:52
1000 dollars a month in my gun fund maybe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's the spirit :cool:
We live in a society of pimps, johns, and whores. Find out which one suits you best and go with it
Fireflynomics 101
The more accurate reality is, despite our wishes to the contrary, we are all at various times the pimp, the john or the hooker depending upon the situation and the other players involved.
titsonritz
03-16-19, 03:02
You want my vote it's going to cost you 7 grand a month.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-16-19, 05:16
It's probably worth remembering that many proponents of UBI propose that it be paid mostly or entirely by dismantling all other social welfare programs: No more EBT, no more welfare, &c. That's not to say that it would be possible to have a UBI be $1000 a month by paying for it with money formerly earmarked for welfare programs, cuz I don't know who has done what math on it. But that's the theory.
Spot on.
Reagan, in his “a time for choosing” speech talks about how if you divided the amount of money spent on welfare by the number of applicants you could send other kids to Harvard. Assuming you don’t have to bribe the admissions counselor.
In someways UBI is radically right wing in that it forces people to actually take care and account for them selves.
My dad always said “there is a lot of money in poverty”....
It's probably worth remembering that many proponents of UBI propose that it be paid mostly or entirely by dismantling all other social welfare programs: No more EBT, no more welfare, &c. That's not to say that it would be possible to have a UBI be $1000 a month by paying for it with money formerly earmarked for welfare programs, cuz I don't know who has done what math on it. But that's the theory.
That was what Milton Friedman thought. Technically he liked something called the Negative Income Tax. It is phased out as you make more, but it works in such a way that it removes welfare cliffs. Making $1 will always leave you better off than sitting at home. That's a good thing.
The way UBI would work under most proposals is that the income would be taxable. That means that it would be taxed back at progressive rates. Since Mark Zuckerberg pays about 50% on the margins, the cost to the government is only about half the top line cost.
Spot on.
Reagan, in his “a time for choosing” speech talks about how if you divided the amount of money spent on welfare by the number of applicants you could send other kids to Harvard. Assuming you don’t have to bribe the admissions counselor.
In someways UBI is radically right wing in that it forces people to actually take care and account for them selves.
My dad always said “there is a lot of money in poverty”....
SNAP (food stamps or EBT) costs about $70B, and about $6.5B of that is administrative costs. If you converted that into a $126/mo per child benefit (current average) the total cost would be $112B. If you got 20% of that back in taxes the cost would fall to $90B and you'd cut about $6B in state and local workers. It would cost a little more but it would gut a significant Democratic base. Worth it? I would say yes.
Taking the same thing to scale, you could convert SSI, SSDI, SNAP, WIC, EITC, CTC, TANF, CHIP, Head Start, child care, school lunch, etc. It works out to something like $250B. Divided by 74M children in the United States and that works out to about $3,400 per child. Assuming that 20% will be taxed back that's about $4,080 per child.
In return for the spending (no net increase, mind you) you can eliminate a few hundred thousand unionized public sector jobs.
I feel like being dark this Sunday.
Sometimes I pray for a North Korean style famine to hit America SO HARD that everyone on EBT/SNAP/free shit dies off. To include their kids and dogs.
I’m ready for an American Arduous March.
Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim.
That was what Milton Friedman thought. Technically he liked something called the Negative Income Tax. It is phased out as you make more, but it works in such a way that it removes welfare cliffs. Making $1 will always leave you better off than sitting at home. That's a good thing.
The way UBI would work under most proposals is that the income would be taxable. That means that it would be taxed back at progressive rates. Since Mark Zuckerberg pays about 50% on the margins, the cost to the government is only about half the top line cost.
SNAP (food stamps or EBT) costs about $70B, and about $6.5B of that is administrative costs. If you converted that into a $126/mo per child benefit (current average) the total cost would be $112T. If you got 20% of that back in taxes the cost would fall to $90T and you'd cut about $6B in state and local workers. It would cost a little more but it would gut a significant Democratic base. Worth it? I would say yes.
Taking the same thing to scale, you could convert SSI, SSDI, SNAP, WIC, EITC, CTC, TANF, CHIP, Head Start, child care, school lunch, etc. It works out to something like $250B. Divided by 74M children in the United States and that works out to about $3,400 per child. Assuming that 20% will be taxed back that's about $4,080 per child.
In return for the spending (no net increase, mind you) you can eliminate a few hundred thousand unionized public sector jobs.
Are the T's a mistake, did you mean B (billion)?
I feel like being dark this Sunday.
Sometimes I pray for a North Korean style famine to hit America SO HARD that everyone on EBT/SNAP/free shit dies off. To include their kids and dogs.
I’m ready for an American Arduous March.
Learn to swim. Learn to swim. Learn to swim.
Never works that way. Those who know how to game the system continue to game the system. Those unfortunates who depend upon them for survival suffer.
The wrong people always die.
If there was some natural catastrophe that destroyed what little infrastructure we have, prepper types would be the first to be victimized by organized street gang types. Self sufficient individuals in small towns would watch half of their children die despite the victory garden in the back yard. Anyone with a functioning large scale farm would be appropriated by government or abandoned to the wolves.
Only the most ruthless, selfish "survive at the cost of everyone else" types would come out on the back end. The exact same people you would hope to cull from the herd would be all that remained of the herd.
Old folks and kids, they would be the first victims. Adaptable ghetto rats and trailer shit would inherit the earth.
Are the T's a mistake, did you mean B (billion)?
I meant billion. The data that I found included lots of Ts and I converted it.
Never works that way. Those who know how to game the system continue to game the system. Those unfortunates who depend upon them for survival suffer.
The wrong people always die.
If there was some natural catastrophe that destroyed what little infrastructure we have, prepper types would be the first to be victimized by organized street gang types. Self sufficient individuals in small towns would watch half of their children die despite the victory garden in the back yard. Anyone with a functioning large scale farm would be appropriated by government or abandoned to the wolves.
Only the most ruthless, selfish "survive at the cost of everyone else" types would come out on the back end. The exact same people you would hope to cull from the herd would be all that remained of the herd.
Old folks and kids, they would be the first victims. Adaptable ghetto rats and trailer shit would inherit the earth.
This is a spot on assessment.
Put me in Great Leader and I’ll make sure the right people die of agonizing starvation.
And generational punishments.
https://cloverchronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Yang-Gang-Meme-16.jpg
Put me in Great Leader and I’ll make sure the right people die of agonizing starvation.
And generational punishments.
There would be a Great Purge of wannabe tough guys for sure, but out of that purge would emerge a few legit Warlords, bringing the Lamentations to those who've earned it. Would you be their Nebuchadnezzar?
All it would take for the inner cities to collapse and descend into anarchy would be the EBT card system to permanently fail and become inaccessible.
Put me in Great Leader and I’ll make sure the right people die of agonizing starvation.
And generational punishments.
If we had a society that was willing to put violent criminals in jail, mentally impaired people who are dangerous into supervised treatment and execute habitual capital criminals you wouldn't need to starve anyone because half the people who currently live the "thug life" would realize risk vs reward no longer justifies shenanigans.
There is a reason Switzerland doesn't have crips n bloods and it isn't because there isn't any black people and they haven't heard any rap music. It is because as a society and a country they don't tolerate half of the criminal shit we tolerate.
Large segments of our population actually embrace that shit. Because of a movie, the real Henry Hill was a f-ing celebrity and he was a serious POS criminal, but because he sold out even bigger POS criminals he was seen as something other than the "f over everyone I can" career criminal that he was.
Ray Liotta played him in a movie and suddenly he's a sympathetic character and the real Henry Hill is doing spots on Howard Stern. Don't get me wrong, I love Goodfellas, Scarface, Casino and the rest of the genre, but I understand they are movies and even when it's based upon true events I view it as mostly fiction and remember the real people don't look like Robert Deniro, Joe Pesci or Ray Liotta.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.