Democratic Primary Thread (New Poll - January)

[ACamp1900]

Lol,... you got to be kidding. Next he’ll be doing Franks Red Hot Ads talking about how he never goes to his minority friend’s cook outs without it.

 

[Irish YJ]

Lol,... you got to be kidding. Next he’ll be doing Franks Red Hot Ads talking about how he never goes to his minority friend’s cook outs without it.

I bet he puts BBQ sauce on his Big Gay Ice Cream....

 

[IrishLax]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Moments ago: <a href="https://twitter.com/DaveChappelle?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DaveChappelle</a> makes his first call phone banking for <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AndrewYang</a> in his Columbia field office <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/covering2020?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#covering2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/dvp91UEk8l">pic.twitter.com/dvp91UEk8l</a></p>— LaCrai Mitchell (@LaCraiMitchell) <a href="https://twitter.com/LaCraiMitchell/status/1222656084139220992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[GATTACA!]

LOL..... WTF.....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">😍🏳️*🌈🍦 <a href="https://twitter.com/biggayicecream?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@biggayicecream</a> <a href="https://t.co/ftKPL9oRsy">pic.twitter.com/ftKPL9oRsy</a></p>— Team Bloomberg (@Mike2020) <a href="https://twitter.com/Mike2020/status/1222324982786797568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

What the fuck??? LMAO

 

[GATTACA!]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h7crf0mzhws" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Volume and language warning. This is incredible though.

UBI would change millions and millions and millions of lives.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Moments ago: <a href="https://twitter.com/DaveChappelle?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DaveChappelle</a> makes his first call phone banking for <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewYang?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AndrewYang</a> in his Columbia field office <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/covering2020?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#covering2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/dvp91UEk8l">pic.twitter.com/dvp91UEk8l</a></p>— LaCrai Mitchell (@LaCraiMitchell) <a href="https://twitter.com/LaCraiMitchell/status/1222656084139220992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"Ching. Chong. Chang. Can't understand you. White Power."

 

[Irish YJ]

"Ching. Chong. Chang. Can't understand you. White Power."

 

[Irish YJ]

Buttigieg is now racist for using the term "American Heartland"......

holy cow people are f'ing nuts.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In the face of unprecedented challenges, we need a president whose vision was shaped by the American Heartland rather than the ineffective Washington politics we’ve come to know and expect.</p>— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1222632372362981378?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h7crf0mzhws" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Volume and language warning. This is incredible though.

UBI would change millions and millions and millions of lives.

Talk about buying votes lol.....

I'd almost be OK with UBI if I thought the math would work. In reality, the VAT just passes on the costs to consumers (who are now paying the VAT), businesses (who now will raise prices to offset for the VAT), and likely drive production down (for those services that a VAT is levied on due to decreased buying power).

I have no problem with targeted VATs, or the VAT premise in general, but it's not some silver bullet remedy. And I'd prefer any VAT be used to drive down existing taxes, and be applied to all the welfare already in place.

There are a lot of created solutions out there, but pure "free shit" solutions are a head scratcher to me. Have lotteries that fund education (like GA), put VATs on booze and cigs that fund healthcare, etc., etc..

 

[IrishLax]

Talk about buying votes lol.....

I'd almost be OK with UBI if I thought the math would work. In reality, the VAT just passes on the costs to consumers (who are now paying the VAT), businesses (who now will raise prices to offset for the VAT), and likely drive production down (for those services that a VAT is levied on due to decreased buying power).

I have no problem with targeted VATs, or the VAT premise in general, but it's not some silver bullet remedy. And I'd prefer any VAT be used to drive down existing taxes, and be applied to all the welfare already in place.

There are a lot of created solutions out there, but pure "free shit" solutions are a head scratcher to me. Have lotteries that fund education (like GA), put VATs on booze and cigs that fund healthcare, etc., etc..

VAT's are the most effective taxes on corporations, period. Yes, some cost gets passed on. That happens with every tax. But it does a WAY better than, say, our current tax code of taxing the following groups:
1. Tourists and other non-citizens.
2. Corporations.
3. Uber rich without directly trying to attack their "wealth" (which flat out doesn't work)

Basically, our entire tax code should be replaced by a combination of VATs, property taxes, and sales taxes. But lobbyists from H&R Block, etc. will never let that happen.

 

[ulukinatme]

Buttigieg is now racist for using the term "American Heartland"......

holy cow people are f'ing nuts.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In the face of unprecedented challenges, we need a president whose vision was shaped by the American Heartland rather than the ineffective Washington politics we’ve come to know and expect.</p>— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1222632372362981378?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Holy crap, the stupidity in the comments...one guy said he left the "Heartland" because of racism and bigotry and refused to support that region...especially since those states already rely on his blue state's tax dollars. In reality states in the heartland don't rely on NJ tax dollars, the closest place to a Midwest state that receives extra federal funding would be Kentucky. The states that receive the most federal funding are southern states, New Mexico, and Alaska. It's rather asinine to think NJ supports most of those states by itself anyway, it provides a very small portion.

 

[Irish YJ]

VAT's are the most effective taxes on corporations, period. Yes, some cost gets passed on. That happens with every tax. But it does a WAY better than, say, our current tax code of taxing the following groups:
1. Tourists and other non-citizens.
2. Corporations.
3. Uber rich without directly trying to attack their "wealth" (which flat out doesn't work)

Basically, our entire tax code should be replaced by a combination of VATs, property taxes, and sales taxes. But lobbyists from H&R Block, etc. will never let that happen.

I'm very familiar with VATs. Worked EMEA for many years.

I agree that VATs and sales tax should replace a lot of our existing tax code, but one way or another, it get's passed on. I'd rather tax consumption, than income. The only thing I really don't like about VAT, is that it's typically levied at each stop for a good, vs a sales tax that is only levied at it's last stop (retailer level). BUT, I don't want income tax, sales tax, and now a whole slew of VATs, and I think that's what Yang wants along with additional taxes levied in other places.

 

[GATTACA!]

Talk about buying votes lol.....

I'd almost be OK with UBI if I thought the math would work. In reality, the VAT just passes on the costs to consumers (who are now paying the VAT), businesses (who now will raise prices to offset for the VAT), and likely drive production down (for those services that a VAT is levied on due to decreased buying power).

Do you plan on spending $120,000 per year on luxury items? No? Problem solved.

Even if 100% of the VAT were passed to the consumers (which it won't be based on the precedent set by the huge number of other countries that have already started using one) there would be no way any average American would come out behind with the VAT/freedom dividend combo.

I have no problem with targeted VATs, or the VAT premise in general, but it's not some silver bullet remedy. And I'd prefer any VAT be used to drive down existing taxes, and be applied to all the welfare already in place.

Then you already like Yang's plan and just don't know it.

From his website

This VAT would vary based on the good to which it’s applied, with staples having a lower rate or being excluded, and luxury goods having a higher rate.

There are a lot of created solutions out there, but pure "free shit" solutions are a head scratcher to me. Have lotteries that fund education (like GA), put VATs on booze and cigs that fund healthcare, etc., etc..

Yepp that's the idea.

 

[Irish YJ]

Do you plan on spending $120,000 per year on luxury items? No? Problem solved.

Even if 100% of the VAT were passed to the consumers (which it won't be based on the precedent set by the huge number of other countries that have already started using one) there would be no way any average American would come out behind with the VAT/freedom dividend combo.

Then you already like Yang's plan and just don't know it.

From his website

Yepp that's the idea.

It's not that simple. Where do you think the money comes from? Let's say they put VATs on hotel stays. The higher prices equate to less demand, especially less demand from people who struggled to afford them in the first place. Let's say they put VATs on TVs. Again, less demand from low to medium income people. VATs on luxury cars. Could mean less demand from medium and high income, translating into job loss, etc.. Heck, and added 10% could make the overall tax on a good 20% depending on the state. You're next trip to Nashville or New Orleans, make sure you factor that in...

I do like that it's consumption based IF it replaced income tax, but it doesn't. It's more or less a federal sales tax on top of everything else. And most say the math doesn't work out anyway, and will require additional taxes and offsets just to get to the $750/month level. The math is definitely funny.

And while it may help some, it will go to many who don't need it, and also to many who are now given even more encouragement not to work. IMO, fix the existing tax code first before adding massive VATs and free shit on top of an already clustered system.

And to the last, no, he's not saying VATs on booze and cigs to fund healthcare as far as I've seen.

 

[GATTACA!]

It's not that simple. Where do you think the money comes from? Let's say they put VATs on hotel stays. The higher prices equate to less demand, especially less demand from people who struggled to afford them in the first place. Let's say they put VATs on TVs. Again, less demand from low to medium income people. VATs on luxury cars. Could mean less demand from medium and high income, translating into job loss, etc.. Heck, and added 10% could make the overall tax on a good 20% depending on the state. You're next trip to Nashville or New Orleans, make sure you factor that in...

I do like that it's consumption based IF it replaced income tax, but it doesn't. It's more or less a federal sales tax on top of everything else. And most say the math doesn't work out anyway, and will require additional taxes and offsets just to get to the $750/month level. The math is definitely funny.

If you're handing $1,00 cash to every american they are more likely to spend on all of the things you listed, not less likely because these things they couldn't afford before are now in a worst case scenario 10% more expensive. Which wouldn't be the case based on pother places that already have VATs at twice the level Yang wants to implement and show less than 50% being passed to consumers.

People that can't afford those luxury purchases right now are going to put the dividend towards things like childcare, rent, car payments, and necessities. They would all rather have the $1k and a slight increase in taxes.

People that already were making those luxury purchases and taking trips will continue to do so. I would take way more trips and spend money on other disposable things regardless of the tax increase because there's no way on earth I would ever dream of approaching what it would take to come out behind. 94% of americans would come out ahead with the VAT/dividend.

His plan has never been to fund the whole dividend with just the VAT. It's a combo of the VAT, a carbon tax, and savings coming from the cutting of other welfare programs the UBI would replace. Maybe the numbers are fudged but they are a hell of a lot closer to being realistic vs what any of these other candidates are offering.

And while it may help some, it will go to many who don't need it, and also to many who are now given even more encouragement not to work. IMO, fix the existing tax code first before adding massive VATs and free shit on top of an already clustered system.

Who gets to judge who "needs" it? Part of Yang's reasoning for making the dividend universal is that it removes the stigma from taking the money. People aren't second class citizens for needing the UBI because every american is entitled to it. It would also be much harder to remove or reduce down the line if every american is getting it. It's not like the dirty poor people on entitlements right now. Everyone gets "theirs". Look at Alaska with their petroleum dividend. It's so popular in a deep red state that surveys have showed people would be willing to pay higher taxes just to keep it around. Imagine that at a national level.

Second, you save as much as you would spend in eliminating the wasteful task of means testing. Do we really want to waste everyones time employing the people it would take to means test 200+ million people spending dimes so we can save nickels?

Third, and this ties into your point about encouraging people to work, removing means testing means that people actually can go to work and improve their lives. I know people personally who choose not to work or their spouse does because they know that getting a job would cause them to forfeit their free healthcare or food stamps. Why go do some shitty job for minimum wage when they can sit at home, do a few things under that table, and make just as much not working? Instead remove the means testing and all of a sudden someone who is making 12k off the UBI can go get a job and actually double their annual salary.

Yes there will be some that say fuck it and decide to just live off the UBI, but I'd argue that there would be many more that would actually be spurred into getting a job once they know doing so wouldn't forfeit their income.

And to the last, no, he's not saying VATs on booze and cigs to fund healthcare as far as I've seen.

You're right I misread your reply.

 

[GATTACA!]

Found the quote I was looking for from the Roosevelt Institute study into the economic impact of enacting a UBI.

For all three designs, enacting a UBI and paying for it by increasing the federal debt would grow the
economy. Under the smallest spending scenario, $250 per month for each child, GDP is 0.79% larger
than under the baseline forecast after eight years. According to the Levy Model, the largest cash
program - $1,000 for all adults annually - expands the economy by 12.56% over the baseline after eight
years. After eight years of enactment, the stimulative effects of the program dissipate and GDP growth
returns to the baseline forecast, but the level of output remains permanently higher.

Modeling the Macroeconomic
Effects of a Universal Basic Income

 

[Irish YJ]

If you're handing $1,00 cash to every american they are more likely to spend on all of the things you listed, not less likely because these things they couldn't afford before are now in a worst case scenario 10% more expensive. Which wouldn't be the case based on pother places that already have VATs at twice the level Yang wants to implement and show less than 50% being passed to consumers.

People that can't afford those luxury purchases right now are going to put the dividend towards things like childcare, rent, car payments, and necessities. They would all rather have the $1k and a slight increase in taxes.

People that already were making those luxury purchases and taking trips will continue to do so. I would take way more trips and spend money on other disposable things regardless of the tax increase because there's no way on earth I would ever dream of approaching what it would take to come out behind. 94% of americans would come out ahead with the VAT/dividend.

His plan has never been to fund the whole dividend with just the VAT. It's a combo of the VAT, a carbon tax, and savings coming from the cutting of other welfare programs the UBI would replace. Maybe the numbers are fudged but they are a hell of a lot closer to being realistic vs what any of these other candidates are offering.



Who gets to judge who "needs" it? Part of Yang's reasoning for making the dividend universal is that it removes the stigma from taking the money. People aren't second class citizens for needing the UBI because every american is entitled to it. It would also be much harder to remove or reduce down the line if every american is getting it. It's not like the dirty poor people on entitlements right now. Everyone gets "theirs". Look at Alaska with their petroleum dividend. It's so popular in a deep red state that surveys have showed people would be willing to pay higher taxes just to keep it around. Imagine that at a national level.

Second, you save as much as you would spend in eliminating the wasteful task of means testing. Do we really want to waste everyones time employing the people it would take to means test 200+ million people spending dimes so we can save nickels?

Third, and this ties into your point about encouraging people to work, removing means testing means that people actually can go to work and improve their lives. I know people personally who choose not to work or their spouse does because they know that getting a job would cause them to forfeit their free healthcare or food stamps. Why go do some shitty job for minimum wage when they can sit at home, do a few things under that table, and make just as much not working? Instead remove the means testing and all of a sudden someone who is making 12k off the UBI can go get a job and actually double their annual salary.

Yes there will be some that say fuck it and decide to just live off the UBI, but I'd argue that there would be many more that would actually be spurred into getting a job once they know doing so wouldn't forfeit their income.

You're right I misread your reply.

Couple things. When you have time, look at/google the VAT problems in the EU. Aside from being plain regressive, there are many other problems. I'd also add that the EU's finances are a cluster right now, if that says anything.

Again, not anti-VAT. I'm anti VAT + income tax + state sales tax + death tax +....... and I'm undecided on VAT being used for UBI... As far as who gets to decide who needs it, Yang is pretty much deciding that via his policy. It's just another means of wealth redistribution.

If Yang came out and said, I'm going to replace our existing tax system with a flat or fair tax, I'm going to add VAT on booze, weed, and cigs to pay for health care, I'm going to let PowerBall and MegaMillion pay for tuition (like GA), and a few other similar things... Then I'd be all Yang. But he's basically saying VAT is just an additional tax, and there is no logic to who gets it.

I also don't think the fed would get rid of means testing or do away with welfare. We'd here progressives saying it's not enough, means testing loss would put people out of work, etc.. And even if you got rid of means testing, you'd just add more headcount to the IRS for VAT management. If there's any fed org that needs to be turned upside down, it's the IRS, and a fair or flat tax would do that.

 

[GATTACA!]

Couple things. When you have time, look at/google the VAT problems in the EU. Aside from being plain regressive, there are many other problems. I'd also add that the EU's finances are a cluster right now, if that says anything.

When not coupled with a UBI a VAT is regressive no question about it.

If Yang came out and said, I'm going to replace our existing tax system with a flat or fair tax, I'm going to add VAT on booze, weed, and cigs to pay for health care, I'm going to let PowerBall and MegaMillion pay for tuition (like GA), and a few other similar things... Then I'd be all Yang. But he's basically saying VAT is just an additional tax, and there is no logic to who gets it.

There is logic to it though. Yang's UBI is an attempt to capture a piece of the golden pile companies like Amazon and Facebook are sitting on. Amazon shouldn't be making $84.7 billion in revenue and pay zero in federal taxes. Yang wants to employ a VAT because it's the hardest tax system to game even with its flaws.

Instead of taking that new tax revenue and starting a new war or wasting it on god know what else out money goes towards he wants to put it into the hands of the people who actually need it.

I also don't think the fed would get rid of means testing or do away with welfare. We'd here progressives saying it's not enough, means testing loss would put people out of work, etc.. And even if you got rid of means testing, you'd just add more headcount to the IRS for VAT management. If there's any fed org that needs to be turned upside down, it's the IRS, and a fair or flat tax would do that.

They wouldn't end means testing on our current welfare programs, but Yang's UBI is being given to ALL Americans over the age of 17 specifically so that no means testing is required.

To receive your freedom dividend you must decline most current welfare benefits. That immediately eliminates a huge portion of the people in those programs that need to be tested. That moves more people into the UBI pool, but simply paying out $1000 a month is infinitely easier than all the bullshit hoops involved in our current systems.

 

[Irish YJ]

When not coupled with a UBI a VAT is regressive no question about it.

IDK. Welfare is already paying more to those in need than UBI would.

There is logic to it though. Yang's UBI is an attempt to capture a piece of the golden pile companies like Amazon and Facebook are sitting on. Amazon shouldn't be making $84.7 billion in revenue and pay zero in federal taxes. Yang wants to employ a VAT because it's the hardest tax system to game even with its flaws.

I'm all for closing BS loopholes and tax incentives for companies like Amazon. That can be accomplished without VAT though. VAT is just a lazy way of not addressing the core issue.

Instead of taking that new tax revenue and starting a new war or wasting it on god know what else out money goes towards he wants to put it into the hands of the people who actually need it.

He's also putting it in the hands of people that don't need it. Everyone gets it.

They wouldn't end means testing on our current welfare programs, but Yang's UBI is being given to ALL Americans over the age of 17 specifically so that no means testing is required.

To receive your freedom dividend you must decline most current welfare benefits. That immediately eliminates a huge portion of the people in those programs that need to be tested. That moves more people into the UBI pool, but simply paying out $1000 a month is infinitely easier than all the bullshit hoops involved in our current systems.

Most welfare recipients receive more than 12K a year IIRC. So does this really eliminate a huge portion?

 

[GATTACA!]

IDK. Welfare is already paying more to those in need than UBI would.

Not true

I'm all for closing BS loopholes and tax incentives for companies like Amazon. That can be accomplished without VAT though. VAT is just a lazy way of not addressing the core issue.

Good luck.

He's also putting it in the hands of people that don't need it. Everyone gets it.

Again who get to determine who needs it? What cut off would you feel comfortable with? Hey my wife makes too much money for us to be eligible better get divorced so I can get the dividend, it's worth $12k per year. Hey that promotion at work? No thanks, that $1.25 raise is actually going to lose me $940 per month when I lose my UBI eligibility.

Beyond that now you have to employ THOUSANDS of government means testers to keep track of all this shit. Wasting more money you could be using to better the lives of your citizens instead. You'd rather throw money away making sure people that don't "need" assistance are kept from it than just giving it to everyone instead. It's lunacy! Lol

Most welfare recipients receive more than 12K a year IIRC. So does this really eliminate a huge portion?

No you're mistaken. The average benefit nationally is something just shy of $25 per day. That's ~$750 per month. So right off the bat a huge portion are going to switch just based off the number being higher. Then you have to consider that $25 including medicaid which wouldn't be a factor anymore since Yang is in favor of universal healthcare. Beyond that even if you're in the minority of people that get marginally more in welfare benefits than the $1000 many will still consider taking the UBI because there are no restrictions. It's cash that can be spent however you feel like. And additionally as I've mentioned before also gives them the option of getting a job and not risking losing their income.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ask yourself this question: How can one of our two major parties be all in on a position (on the most inflammatory topic of our time) held by *thirteen percent* of US Americans? <a href="https://t.co/t1lJBPfQhj">pic.twitter.com/t1lJBPfQhj</a></p>— Charlie Camosy (@CCamosy) <a href="https://twitter.com/CCamosy/status/1223205493050630144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

Not true

Sorry, probably was not as clear as I should be. Not sure if you are only talking about cash, snap, or what. I'm talking about combined cash welfare, snap, housing subsidy, TEFAP, WIC, and things like utility assistance (heat is very common). There's a whole lot more.

Good luck.

It's a gaping wound that needs to be addressed. Trying to back-end this is not the answer. Hitting consumers and not addressing the fundamental corporate profit element is just insane to me. Like I said, I'm fine with a VAT, but not if you're just doing it to ignore the core problem.

Again who get to determine who needs it? What cut off would you feel comfortable with? Hey my wife makes too much money for us to be eligible better get divorced so I can get the dividend, it's worth $12k per year. Hey that promotion at work? No thanks, that $1.25 raise is actually going to lose me $940 per month when I lose my UBI eligibility.

Beyond that now you have to employ THOUSANDS of government means testers to keep track of all this shit. Wasting more money you could be using to better the lives of your citizens instead. You'd rather throw money away making sure people that don't "need" assistance are kept from it than just giving it to everyone instead. It's lunacy! Lol

I think it's naive to think this would shrink government. Means testers, if shrunk at all, would turn into UBI staff and VAT tax people (google VAT problems, and you will see all the challenges the Euros have in tracking VAT).

As far as determining who needs it, the gov makes all kinds of decisions for us. In this case, they're saying everyone needs it, and we're going to take it from these targeted groups of consumers, and these industries. Who makes the decisions who gets targeted? Is that fair? Are the other welfare programs going to go away, probably not, and someone will still be deciding who gets what...

No you're mistaken. The average benefit nationally is something just shy of $25 per day. That's ~$750 per month. So right off the bat a huge portion are going to switch just based off the number being higher. Then you have to consider that $25 including medicaid which wouldn't be a factor anymore since Yang is in favor of universal healthcare. Beyond that even if you're in the minority of people that get marginally more in welfare benefits than the $1000 many will still consider taking the UBI because there are no restrictions. It's cash that can be spent however you feel like. And additionally as I've mentioned before also gives them the option of getting a job and not risking losing their income.

See above on the general "what's included". So now you're removing medicaid via NHC, which will require a whole slew of additional funding/taxes. The only thing I like about Yang on HC is his view on drug costs. Other than that, he's fuzzy on how he'll pay for it, and it will likely come down to same stuff, different day, that we've seen from the left in general.

I'm actually for NHC, but I'm for a somewhat single payer system. If he doesn't abolish the middle men, he isn't really attacking the "cost" factors like he says he wants to. IMO, he (and the left) are playing the middle, both for raising taxes, and still allowing unnecessary layers of profit for corps.

 

[stlnd01]

YJ, Gattaca, maybe get a room?

 

[NorthDakota]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ask yourself this question: How can one of our two major parties be all in on a position (on the most inflammatory topic of our time) held by *thirteen percent* of US Americans? <a href="https://t.co/t1lJBPfQhj">pic.twitter.com/t1lJBPfQhj</a></p>— Charlie Camosy (@CCamosy) <a href="https://twitter.com/CCamosy/status/1223205493050630144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It really is wild.

If Dems turned into moderate Republicans on literally one subject, abortion, they'd lock down a generation in the White House.

Meanwhile, if Republicans turned into moderate Dems on literally one subject, gun rights, they'd see exactly zero benefit at all lmao.

 

[Irish YJ]

YJ, Gattaca, maybe get a room?

For a Yang Bang?

 

[GATTACA!]

For a Yang Bang?

 

[ACamp1900]

YJ, Gattaca, maybe get a room?

Make sure it’s taxpayer funded tho,... or else GATT won’t be able to sleep at night,.......

 

[Irishize]

Sorry, probably was not as clear as I should be. Not sure if you are only talking about cash, snap, or what. I'm talking about combined cash welfare, snap, housing subsidy, TEFAP, WIC, and things like utility assistance (heat is very common). There's a whole lot more.



It's a gaping wound that needs to be addressed. Trying to back-end this is not the answer. Hitting consumers and not addressing the fundamental corporate profit element is just insane to me. Like I said, I'm fine with a VAT, but not if you're just doing it to ignore the core problem.



I think it's naive to think this would shrink government. Means testers, if shrunk at all, would turn into UBI staff and VAT tax people (google VAT problems, and you will see all the challenges the Euros have in tracking VAT).

As far as determining who needs it, the gov makes all kinds of decisions for us. In this case, they're saying everyone needs it, and we're going to take it from these targeted groups of consumers, and these industries. Who makes the decisions who gets targeted? Is that fair? Are the other welfare programs going to go away, probably not, and someone will still be deciding who gets what...



See above on the general "what's included". So now you're removing medicaid via NHC, which will require a whole slew of additional funding/taxes. The only thing I like about Yang on HC is his view on drug costs. Other than that, he's fuzzy on how he'll pay for it, and it will likely come down to same stuff, different day, that we've seen from the left in general.

I'm actually for NHC, but I'm for a somewhat single payer system. If he doesn't abolish the middle men, he isn't really attacking the "cost" factors like he says he wants to. IMO, he (and the left) are playing the middle, both for raising taxes, and still allowing unnecessary layers of profit for corps.

First, kudos to the 2 of you having a civil conversation w/o name calling, condescending, etc. It’s sad that this is the exception rather than the rule.

I like Yang and think his intentions give a fresh perspective but I have to agree with YJ. If this was implemented, it would soon be bastardized by the bureaucrats. There would be a new layer of govt employees to facilitate this. Then each party would find a way to siphon these taxes to go to their pet projects while no one is looking. Fast forward 20-30 years and we find out the that the funding for the UBI is upside down b/c its funds have been raided by bureaucrats. Then you’d have some candidate propose putting the VAT in a “Lockbox’ to ensure it doesn’t get misappropriated. But it’s already too late and the only answer is increased taxes which will also eventually get misappropriated. Circle of life, Simba.

 

[Irishize]

It really is wild.

If Dems turned into moderate Republicans on literally one subject, abortion, they'd lock down a generation in the White House.

Meanwhile, if Republicans turned into moderate Dems on literally one subject, gun rights, they'd see exactly zero benefit at all lmao.

Very underrated post. Well done.

 

[Irish YJ]

Make sure it’s taxpayer funded tho,... or else GATT won’t be able to sleep at night,.......

Throw in some ND provided abortifacients... If memory serves, the case is going forward next week in federal court.