Democratic Candidate Andrew Yang Proposes $1,000 A Month To Every American...

**SteyrAUG** · 03-12-19, 21:48

There is socialism, and then there is this.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/andr...-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.

**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.

**26 Inf** · 03-13-19, 00:31

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.

**SteyrAUG** · 03-13-19, 01:18

Originally Posted by Dr. Bullseye

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.

**Rogue556** · 03-13-19, 01:29

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

**SteyrAUG** · 03-13-19, 02:04

Originally Posted by Rogue556

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.