How do you feel about Andrew Yang's UBI of 1,000 a month for every US Adult

[Moadar]

Yes, we get it... you are so edgy it's cool.

Let me know when you can back up your ridiculous claim.

You got any black skinny jeans?

[Machismo]

You got any black skinny jeans?

I'll take that as an admission you have been disingenuous from the outset.

Have a very special day, for a very special boy.

[-aiko-]

I think it's a fantastic idea, especially with how he laid out how he'd pay for it.

Sadly I expect him to drop out in the coming months, but maybe he can become a conversation starter.

[Moadar]

I'll take that as an admission you have been disingenuous from the outset.

Have a very special day, for a very special boy.

You'll always be my favorite friend here.

[Vash The Stampede]

It would require a full restructuring of the American economy so it's going nowhere.

Give it a few more months and we'll be restructuring our economy regardless. Every metric says we should be in a recession and yet the wealthy get wealthier and the stocks go up. At some point the rubber band is going to snap back.

He's never been able to explain how even a small percentage of it would be paid for.

Neither has the Federal Reserve explained how we're going to deal with the 3 trillion dollars they gave to banks since September of this year. I'm not saying we should just print money for a UBI, but that's how the wealthy get their money it seems.

The proposal as is is a non-starter but if it starts a real conversation about it then that's fine. U.S. does the same for most corporations as it is in the form of tax rules. It's a form of corporate socialism.

We better figure it out soon because this false economy won't last much longer. A UBI is inevitable, so we better find a way to make it work. What we should focus on is taking back our democracy because you don't want the wealthy in control over who gets this free money when they spend billions in lobbying.

[PC2]

Give it a few more months and we'll be restructuring our economy regardless.

What on Earth are you talking about here. The economy will largely be the same in a few months, hopefully a tad bit larger.

Every metric says we should be in a recession and yet the wealthy get wealthier and the stocks go up.

How are you taking metrics and then deciding that we should be in a recession...

[Vash The Stampede]

What on Earth are you talking about here. The economy will largely be the same in a few months, hopefully a tad bit larger.

Yea, but how? GDP growth is slowing down, inflation rates are stagnant, US manufacturing is shrinking, treasury yields are going down, wages are stagnant, Federal reserve is lowering their interest rates to the point where we're approaching negative interest rates, housing prices are rising, and you think it'll largely be the same in a few months? I'd love to have that blind optimism because what's going on is very depressing.

How are you taking metrics and then deciding that we should be in a recession...

How are you not? The Federal reserve has given out 3 trillion dollars since September because the banks screwed up yet again, and you're comfortable with this? They digitally did the equivalent of printing money and we're going to suffer because of the banks yet again.

[smityx]

Who's going to pay for it

If you are going to give just straight up 1k cash. Here's how. Eliminate welfare, food stamps and other give away programs and it pays for itself with no tax increases. The withholding is already in place and rich people don't get the displeasure of having to pay an extra $1 or 2 a paycheck. Basically by eliminating multiple programs and all the overhead, corruption and bureaucracy involved into just a single programs that has only one goal. Mailing a $1k check or direct deposit each month.

[Shadowferal]

I suspect that this will be relevant; Supreme Court confronts homeless crisis and whether there's a right to sleep on the sidewalk

The justices are weighing an appeal of a much-disputed ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that held last year that it was cruel and unusual punishment to enforce criminal laws against homeless people who are living on the street if a city doesn’t offer enough shelters as an alternative.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

Can we behave and discuss this topic like an adult please? Black skinny jeans have nothing to do with the discussion

[Adam Jensen]

And yet, that still wouldn't come close to covering it.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, that would be a claim that I'd love for you to back up, but you and I both know you couldn't possibly do it.

The Bolsheviks and Stalin would be so proud.

You know . . . wanting to fix the mega imbalance between the lower classes and the upper class (and I mean the upper-upper-upper class) doesn't automatically make one a "bolshevik."

Honestly, when people like you go straight to slinging out those phrases, the rest of us stop taking it seriously, because we've been hearing "that's communism!" towards every single social policy that might help the lower class since 1950.

Joe McCarthy called, he wants his shtick back.

[Daelak]

Here's the problem with implementing new forms of welfare (which is exactly what this is). The old welfare doesn't go away. People would still demand food stamps, housing assistance, farm aid, veterans' benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and a host of other programs. If this would go through, that's $12k a year for just over 200 million people (in theory). How much of those programs would be able to be fully discarded to make room for the new welfare. Sure, if you get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, you just might be able to pay for it. Of course, that may piss off a few people.

So, whatever shortfall in revenue will have to be gained in some other manner. Either that, or just print off a shit ton of money every year, which we already know will be an utter disaster.

To recoup the shortfall would take a new UN agency to help root out tax evasion across the globe, estimated to be over $15 trillion dollars. Why do we have to subsidize the wealthy's penchant for tax evasion and bribery (lobbying) for favorable treatment of the tax code?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I see 2 things happening with this if it were to happen, and I doubt it would in America..

Rent spikes across the country and suddenly most the jobs out there "have a bad few years" and wages stagnate worse than they currently are.

[Fahrenheit]

Yes & no.

No, in that I don't think we're quite 'there' yet, in 2020 or even 2024. Yes, in that I think a UBI is going to be a necessity, in some fashion or another, in the next couple of decades. Though, I'll give Yang credit for getting the idea of UBI back into the mainstream where it needs to be. We need to have serious discussions about it and how to possibly implement something in the not too distant future.

That being said, I can't help but to feel a large push for Yang's version of UBI (and Yang as a candidate in general) is from non serious younger men that want their Yang Bucks to help allow them to maybe get by in Mom's basement playing video games.

[Machismo]

To recoup the shortfall would take a new UN agency to help root out tax evasion across the globe, estimated to be over $15 trillion dollars. Why do we have to subsidize the wealthy's penchant for tax evasion and bribery (lobbying) for favorable treatment of the tax code?

One problem, the UN would have no authority over a country's sovereign tax laws. As for me, I'd love to simplify the tax code. Get rid of exemptions and loopholes, and make it a sales tax, not an income tax.

- - - Updated - - -

You know . . . wanting to fix the mega imbalance between the lower classes and the upper class (and I mean the upper-upper-upper class) doesn't automatically make one a "bolshevik."

Honestly, when people like you go straight to slinging out those phrases, the rest of us stop taking it seriously, because we've been hearing "that's communism!" towards every single social policy that might help the lower class since 1950.

Joe McCarthy called, he wants his shtick back.

You mean the dude who was dehumanizing all wealthy people, and calling them scummy? Yeah, dehumanizing people is a famous means to convince people that oppression is acceptable.

Like I said the Bolsheviks and Stalin would be so very proud.

[BeepBoo]

If people want to act like there is some kind of minimum quality of life people are owed, then we better start instilling a "minimum quality of person required" as well. Since you're trying to alter the natural bare minimum of existence (which is not existing), I see no problem trying to mandate something over the natural minimum for qualifying as human (which is being born).

Can't have one without the other, unless you want to obligate a lot of people who don't need someone to suddenly start caring about that someone. I decline.

[Somewhatconcerned]

If people want to act like there is some kind of minimum quality of life people are owed, then we better start instilling a "minimum quality of person required" as well. Since you're trying to alter the natural bare minimum of existence (which is not existing), I see no problem trying to mandate something over the natural minimum for qualifying as human (which is being born).

Can't have one without the other, unless you want to obligate a lot of people who don't need someone to suddenly start caring about that someone. I decline.

Nailed it precisely.

[Tehshocka]

If people want to act like there is some kind of minimum quality of life people are owed, then we better start instilling a "minimum quality of person required" as well. Since you're trying to alter the natural bare minimum of existence (which is not existing), I see no problem trying to mandate something over the natural minimum for qualifying as human (which is being born).

Can't have one without the other, unless you want to obligate a lot of people who don't need someone to suddenly start caring about that someone. I decline.

Bravo!

I could not have said it any better.

[Shadowferal]

As soon as everyone starts off the same then we can start to play the game of "quality person."
Since I've never met a 1 percenter that wasn't dumb as a brick, rotten piece of shit.

- - - Updated - - -

On a strange related note, California Bans Insurers From Dropping Policies Made Riskier by Climate Change

One consequence of global warming is that it intensifies natural disasters such as fires and floods, but insurers have struggled to anticipate the spiraling costs. Natural disasters in 2017 and 2018 generated $219 billion in payouts worldwide, according to Swiss Re, a leading insurance company.

At the same time, though, government regulators are struggling with their own conundrum: They must balance the need to protect consumers from high insurance rates with the need to keep insurance companies from going out of business entirely.

The insurers’ struggle is all the more remarkable considering that they are explicitly in the business of putting an accurate price on risk.

“There’s just the shock of companies waking up to the liability that’s on their books,” said Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents the state’s insurers. “There are a lot of people scrambling to really understand the nature of this catastrophic risk.”

[Theodarzna]

If people want to act like there is some kind of minimum quality of life people are owed, then we better start instilling a "minimum quality of person required" as well. Since you're trying to alter the natural bare minimum of existence (which is not existing), I see no problem trying to mandate something over the natural minimum for qualifying as human (which is being born).

Can't have one without the other, unless you want to obligate a lot of people who don't need someone to suddenly start caring about that someone. I decline.

That makes zero sense, what or how does one even define "quality of person?" What does that mean in any real terms?